Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 217 N.W. 683.

50 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The phrase ‘circumstances proved’ does not mean ‘every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case’; rather, it 5 refers only to those ‘circumstances as the jury finds proved by the evidence.’” -58 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) ().
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But on review, we can only draw competing inferences from the circumstances proved, which the Minnesota Supreme Court has held do not include “every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case, but only such circumstances as the [fact-finder] finds proved by the evidence.” Stein, d at 715 (emphasis added) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545-46, 217 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545–46, 217 N.W.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Minnesota has long applied a separate stan dard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545-46, 217 N.W.
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
2 State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , 217 N.W.
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
“The phrase ‘circumstances proved’ does not mean ‘every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case’; rather, it refers only to those ‘circumstances as the jury finds proved by the evidence.’ ” -58 (Minn.2008) (quoting State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545 , 217 N.W.
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
at 338 (Meyer, J., concurring) (quoting State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545-46 , 217 N.W.
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
173 Minn. 543, 544 , 217 N.W.
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
173 Minn. 543, 545-46 , 217 N.W.
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
Stated another way, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when “all the circumstances proved [are] consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545 , 217 N.W.
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
We have said that “[cjircumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as any other evidence,” but in order to sustain a conviction, the circumstances proved must be “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Leake, d at 319 ; see also State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545-46 , 217 N.W.
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
See, also, State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 546 , 217 N.W.
State v. Webber 123 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1963
State v. Webber 123 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 1963
State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119 , ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; State v. Larson, 207 Minn. 515 , .
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
State v. Peterson 123 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 1963
2 State v. Ewing, 250 Minn. 436 , 84 N. W. (2d) 904 ; State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119 , ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , .
State v. Bell 115 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1962
State v. Bell 115 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1962
In State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545 , , we said: “* * * By the term ‘circumstances proved’ is not meant every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case, but only such circumstances as the jury finds proved by the evidence.
State v. Ewing 84 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1957
State v. Ewing 84 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 1957
In State v. Johnson, *443 173 Minn. 543, 545 , , we said: “* * * By the term ‘circumstances proved’ is not meant every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case, but only such circumstances as the jury finds proved by the evidence.
State v. Haynes 80 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1957
State v. Haynes 80 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1957
4 See, State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
State v. Brady 70 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 1955
Cf. State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209 , 52 N. W. (2d) 458 ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 .
State v. Pankratz 57 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1953
State v. Pankratz 57 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1953
But, as we said in State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545 , , 684: “* * * By the term ‘circumstances proved’ is not meant every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case, but only such circumstances as the jury finds proved by the *532 evidence.
State v. Waltz 54 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1952
State v. Waltz 54 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1952
State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 ; State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119 , ; State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; 2 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Gorman 17 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1944
State v. Gorman 17 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1944
State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , ; State v. Larson, 207 Minn. 515 , ; State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119 , .
State v. Kaster 300 N.W. 897 Minn. 1941
State v. Kaster 300 N.W. 897 Minn. 1941
State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , 545 , 217 N.W.
State v. Duffy 229 N.W. 558 Minn. 1930
State v. Duffy 229 N.W. 558 Minn. 1930
State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543 , , and citations.