Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408.

369 citing documents.

State v. Smeriglio 409 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Smeriglio 409 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
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. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we believe the jury could reasonably conclude that Meat was guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
State v. Jackman 396 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Widell 393 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Widell 393 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yates 392 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(the reviewing court must assume that the jury believed all the state’s witnesses and disbelieved all contradictory testimony).
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Connelly 389 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Connelly 389 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
On review, “[w]e must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and must assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved everything which contradicted their testimony.” See also
State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Poppy 385 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Poppy 385 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
JIG § 7.03 (2d ed. 1985)
State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A conviction based upon circumstantial evidence 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. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The granting of a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct is justified “only where the misconduct, viewed in light of the whole record, appears to be inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.”
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Pedersen 382 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Pedersen 382 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
DECISION Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to conclude Pedersen was speeding.
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanifer 382 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986