DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Norgaard, 136 N.W.2d 628.

144 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    State v. Nor gaard, 272 Minn. 48, 51
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Franks 765 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2009
    We have repeatedly recognized that when the claim is that the evidence is not sufficient, *73 “our review is limited to ascertaining whether under the evidence contained in the record the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965); (“When considering whether the evidence in a case is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we examine the evidence presented in the record, along with legitimate inferences from that eviden
  • State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
    But normally, even if a prior conviction is properly introduced as impeachment under Rule 609, “the prosecutor may not elicit evidence concerning the facts underlying [the] prior conviction[ ].” , 273 (Minn.1984); State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 51
  • Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
  • Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
    We will not disturb the verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty *477 of the offense charged.” (quoting State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , ).
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
    (quoting State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , ).
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Strommen 648 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2002
    See State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 51 , (“It has been held that prejudice resulting in the minds of the jury by asking improper questions relating to other bad acts may require reversal.”).
  • State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
    See, State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 51
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 535 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 1995
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 51
  • State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Pierson 530 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1995
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Tennin 437 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
    (citing State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , ).
  • State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (quoting State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , ).
  • State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Conklin 406 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Williams 403 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 403 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 320 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).
  • State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Murphy 380 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 1986
    If we conclude that the jury, “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged, a reviewing court will not disturb its verdict.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • Shannon v. State 379 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Shannon v. State 379 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, it is well-settled that appellate review is limited to “ascertaining whether under the evidence contained in the record the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52 , -32 (1965).