Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Poganski, 257 N.W.2d 578.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
In its unique position, a jury “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.” Harris, d at 600 ()
Minn. 2024
“[A]s the sole judge of credibility, [the fact-finder] is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 578, 580-81 (Minn. 1977) (holding a jury’s credibility assessment may not be reversed even when the witness’s testimony was inconsisten t and the witness had previously been involved in fraud) ; (affirming jury verdict for sale of controlled substances despi
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(Minn. 2 Asefaw’s attorney also moved for a mistrial when Khan was present at the verdict hearing.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See also State v. Poganski , (affirming conviction based on witness testimony despite evidence that the witness filed false insurance claims and received favorable treatment for agreeing to testify).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A jury, as the sole judge of credibility, is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’[s] testimony.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[a] jury, as the sole judge of credibility, is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.”
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
Coker v. Jesson 831 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 2013
(); see also State v. Stevens, 248 Minn. 309, 313 , (noting that even “if the jurors believe that a witness has knowingly and willfully testified falsely as to a material fact, ...
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The Minnesota Supreme Court has observed that the jury “ ‘is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.’ ” ().
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wright 679 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
However, “[a] jury, as the sole judge of credibility, is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.”
State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
Pooley v. Mankato Iron & Metal, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Pooley v. Mankato Iron & Metal, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
State v. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
(jury could choose to believe the testimony of witnesses even though the witnesses had been involved in numerous fraudulent schemes).
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A jury “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.” ().
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Dillard 355 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court held the jury could choose to believe the testimony of two witnesses even though the testimony was inconsistent and contradictory and even though the witnesses had been involved in numerous fraudulent schemes.
City of Minnetonka v. Carlson 298 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1980
City of Minnetonka v. Carlson 298 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1980
See, e. g., Seidl v. Trollhaugen, 305 Minn. 506
State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
State v. Pieschke 295 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1980
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
State v. Larson 281 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1979
“A jury, as the sole judge of credibility, is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.”
Roy Matson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp. 277 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by