Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 611. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 611.033 (2026)

Copy Of Confession Or Admission

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A statement, confession, or admission in writing shall not be received in evidence in any criminal proceeding against any defendant unless within a reasonable time of the taking thereof the defendant is furnished with a copy thereof and which statement, confession, or admission shall have endorsed thereon or attached thereto the receipt of the accused or certification of a peace officer which shall state that a copy thereof has been received by or made available to the accused. Nothing in this section requires that a videotape, audiotape, or transcript of a tape be given to the defendant at the time the statement, confession, or admission is made or within a reasonable time thereafter, provided that the videotape or audiotape is available to the defendant or the defendant's attorney for review within a reasonable time of the defendant's arrest, as well as in discovery pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1960–1999 · leading case: State v. Swanson, 498 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Swanson, 498 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 12× “Although the trial judge originally excluded the transcripts, the court later admitted them under Minn. Stat. § 611.033 . This statute provides: A statement, confession, or admission in writing shall not be received in evidence *439 in any criminal proceeding against any…”
State v. Johnson, 256 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1977). · cites it 4× “On appeal, we affirmed the suppression of the tapes, finding that such tapes were “writings” within the contemplation of the statute.”
State v. McCarthy, 104 N.W.2d 673 (Minn. 1960). · cites it 6× “Counsel for defendant thereupon objected to the foundation for his opinion on the ground that it would be in violation of § 611.033, which provides: "No statement, confession, or admission in writing shall be received in evidence in any criminal proceeding against any defendant…”
State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 611.033 (1998) (providing that "[a] statement, confession, or admission in writing shall not be received in evidence in any criminal proceeding against any defendant unless within a reasonable time of the taking thereof the defendant is furnished with a copy…”
State v. Carlson, 328 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 6× “Copies of the statement and the tape were made and given to defendant, as required by Minn. Stat. § 611.033 (1978). 4 The police then requested him to sign a receipt for the tape but, at that time, did not inform him of his right to counsel.”
State v. Brant, 436 N.W.2d 468 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “Appellant next maintains that both the omnibus and trial courts erred in admitting the transcript of his confession because he had not been provided with a copy as required by Minn.Stat. § 611.033 (1986). A finding of the trial court as to the admissibility of a confession will…”
State v. Beach, 231 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. 1975). · cites it 10× “033? (2) Did the trial court err in suppressing the tapes and transcripts on grounds that their use at trial, either as direct evidence *307 or for purposes of the refreshment of thé recollection of a witness (Schmidt), violated § 611.033? Minn. St. 611.033 provides as follows:…”
State v. Shaw, 264 N.W.2d 397 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 3× “The district court at the omnibus hearing suppressed the tape recording as well as the transcribed copy of it because of the state’s failure to give defendant a copy of the statement at the time it was made, as required by § 611.033. The court then ordered the complaint…”
State v. Garden, 125 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. 1963). · cites it 2× “The record here, however, discloses that all requirements of § 611.033 relied upon by defendant were fully complied with.”
State v. Hanson, 176 N.W.2d 607 (Minn. 1970). “) There is no “taking” of a statement, confession or admission from a defendant within the meaning of § 611.033 when a. writing prepared by the defendant himself upon his own initiative when not in custody or in any way subject to the direction or control or influence of…”
State v. Diersen, 356 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 17× “At the pretrial hearing, the trial court (1) excluded evidence of a prior conviction for shoplifting, (2) ruled the prior conviction inadmissible under Minn.R.Evid. 403, 404(b), and (3) excluded the written confession signed by respondent because respondent did not receive a…”
People v. Stokes, 24 Misc. 2d 755 (1960). “38, § 729 [1957]; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 611.033 . * ) But such a policy, initiated full-blown by judicial decision without the benefit of adequate experience in granting such relief, would be too sweeping and perhaps an abuse of discretion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.