Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408.
- State v. Dooley 380 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Anderson
379 N.W.2d 70
Minn. 1985
A conviction based on circumstan tial 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. Danielson 377 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Danielson 377 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Lange 372 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Lange
372 N.W.2d 822
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Prosecutorial misconduct results in a new trial only when it is “inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial that defendant’s right to a fair trial was denied.”
- State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
- State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
- State v. Jobe 361 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Jobe 361 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Loftus v. State 357 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. St. Cyr 354 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Tiessen 354 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
- State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Campion 353 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Booker
348 N.W.2d 753
Minn. 1984
The general standard for granting a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct is whether “the misconduct, viewed in the 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. Casby 348 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1984
- State v. Casby 348 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1984
- State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
- State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
- State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
- State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984
- State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
- State v. Jones 347 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1984
- Hanson v. State 345 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Hanson v. State 345 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Matter of Welfare of M.D.S. 345 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1984
- State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
- State v. Lloyd 345 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 1984
-
Matter of Welfare of M.D.S.
345 N.W.2d 723
Minn. 1984
7 The rule in Minnesota is *735 that “the mere fact of a person’s drinking does not create a presumption of intoxication, and the possibility of intoxication does not create the presumption that a person is incapable of intending to commit a certain act.”
- State v. Ngoc Van Vu 339 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1983
-
State v. Ngoc Van Vu
339 N.W.2d 892
Minn. 1983
(citing State v. Thompson, 273 Minn. 1, 36 , , cert.
- State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
-
State v. Charlton
338 N.W.2d 26
Minn. 1983
The trial court, however, in which we placed the burden of proving voluntary intoxication by a fair preponderance of the evidence on defendant.
- State v. Daniels 332 N.W.2d 172 Minn. 1983