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. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
    We do, however, and prosecutors in future grand jury proceedings should look to the jury instruction guides for direction.
  • State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bright 471 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Dutton 450 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Erickson 449 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1989
    Surely, “the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the [trier of fact] * * * despite the existence of some evidence to the contrary,” (voluntary intoxication).
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
    Where findings are “based on circumstantial evidence, the conviction may stand only where the facts and circumstances disclosed by the circumstantial evidence form a complete chain which, in the 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. Webb 440 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Webb 440 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1989
    The circumstantial evidence must “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. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
  • 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. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Alton 432 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Alton 432 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Ness 431 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1988
    However, on review, the court “must assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved everything which contradicted their testimony.” Andrews, d at 728 ().
  • State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hayes 428 N.W.2d 871 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Merrill 428 N.W.2d 361 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Bias 419 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 1988
    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.”
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
    we held it was incorrect to instruct the jury that “a person under the influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs is presumed to know, intend and remember criminal acts which he does while so intoxicated to the extent as would a man not influenced by such intoxicants.” While incorrect, the instructio
  • State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Stillday 417 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kingbird 412 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delcastillo 411 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The standard for determining whether prosecutorial misconduct requires a : Whether a new trial should be granted because of misconduct of the prosecuting attorney is governed by no fixed rules but rests within the discretion of the trial judge, who is in the best position to appraise its effect.