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. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408.

369 citing documents.

  • State v. Thompson 578 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Ashby 567 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Buntrock 560 N.W.2d 383 Minn. 1997
    “As long as the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury on the intoxication issue, that conclusion will not be reversed, despite the existence of some evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Auchampach 540 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1995
    2319, 2326-30 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977); -19 (Minn.1980) (comparing Mullaney and Patterson and, following Patterson , requiring that defendant bear the burden of proving voluntary intoxication by a fair preponderance of the evidence).
  • State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
  • 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. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
    In closing argument, the prosecutor has “the right to present to the jury all legitimate arguments on the evidence, to analyze and explain the evidence, and to present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
    Further, we have said that on appeal a conviction based on circumstantial evidence may stand “only where the facts and circumstances disclosed by the circumstantial evidence form a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.”
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
    The conviction may stand only where the circumstances form “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” Bias, d at 484 ().
  • State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See, , 431 n. 3 (Minn.1989) (no factual basis for theory that defendant killed victim because she laughed at him “following a failed attempt at sexual intercourse”)
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (prosecutor’s remarks improper where not justified by evidence).
  • State v. Braylock 501 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Braylock 501 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
    See, (argument must be limited to the facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom); State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 14 , (prosecutor’s argument should not seek to inflame or prejudice the jury against the defendant by improper assertions).
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Moore 481 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Landin 472 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Landin 472 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1991
    a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the appropriate standard of review is whether “the circumstances form ‘a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.’ ” ().