Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reichenberger, 182 N.W.2d 692.

45 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. A. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 See Foreman, d at 539, 541 (“additional reasons”); Balsley , d at 886- 88 (“unusual circumstances”); -95 (Minn. 1970) (upholding a conviction for carnal knowledge of a child even though the victim made conflicting statements regarding “whether intercourse had in fact taken place” and how the penetration occurred).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Cf. id.; -95 (Minn. 1970) (upholding a conviction for carnal knowledge of a child even though the victim made conflicting statements regarding “whether intercourse had in fact taken place” and how the penetration occurred).
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“The witness did make some 7 prior statements which were not consistent with her testimony at trial.
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Beard, d at 541; -95 (Minn. 1970) (affirming a conviction of sexual intercourse with a minor even though the minor made conflicting statements prior to trial, because the minor testified positively at trial that intercourse had occurred).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Reichenberger , (noting that “[t]he witness did make some prior statements which were not consistent with her testimony at trial,” that “[t]he jury was apprised of those facts,” and that “the task of weighing credibility was for the jury,” and not the appellate court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-695 (Minn. 1970) (affirming a conviction of having sexual intercourse with a child despite the child -victim’s conflicting statements at various times before trial because, at trial she testified positively that the intercourse occurred and “the task of weighing credibility was for the jury, not this court.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that it is the duty of the fact -finder, not an appellate court, to weigh the credibility of witnesses).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 664, 673-74 (Minn. 2006)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a conviction fo r having sexual intercourse w ith a minor even though the victim made conflicting statements at various times prior to trial, because the victim testified positively at trial th at intercourse had occurred.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In State v. Reichenberger , the supreme court affirmed a conviction based on a victim’s testimony 7 despite the victim’s conflicting statements about the incident at various times prior to trial.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. State v. Reichenberger , (“[W]eighing the credibility of a complaining witness who had given conflicting stories is a function for the jury.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Reichenberger , 5 (Minn. 1970).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing 289 Minn. 75, 78, ).
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
See State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79-80 , (noting that the jury had been apprised of a witness’s prior inconsistent statements and that weighing credibility was a task for the jury and not for this court).
State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79
State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79-80
State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. White 411 N.W.2d 196 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79 , (“the task of weighing [witness] credibility was for the jury,” not the appellate court); pet.
State v. Garden 404 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Garden 404 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79
Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Harris v. State 399 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75, 79 , (“the task of weighing [witness] credibility was for the jury,” not the appellate court); pet.
State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mussehl 396 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
United States v. Bittner, 728 F.2d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir.1984); State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75
State v. Housley 322 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1982
State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
In State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75 , the 13-year-old prosecutrix in a carnal knowledge case changed her story about defendant’s conduct a number of times, but we held her testimony at trial was sufficient to justify the conviction.
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75 , State v. Brehmer, 281 Minn. 156 , State v. Keezer, 274 Minn. 292 , , cert.
State v. Molin 288 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1979
State v. Molin 288 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1979
3 (1976), and State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75
State v. Ayers 228 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1975
State v. Ayers 228 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75 , State v. Butenhoff, 279 Minn. 177 , 155 N.W.
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
State v. Reichenberger, 289 Minn. 75 , 182 N. W. (2d) 692 .