Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580.

280 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In sufficiency cases, an appellate court construes the record most favorably to the state, especially where resolution depends on conflicting testimony because “weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [fact- finder].”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arden Clarence Hoff v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Heidemann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[O]n review of a criminal conviction, [this court] will construe the record most favorably to the state.”
Arden Clarence Hoff v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In particular, “weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [factfinder].”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin John Motz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin John Motz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We assume the jury was persuaded by the evidence supporting the conviction, especially “where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We assume the jury was persuaded by the evidence supporting the conviction, especially “where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence in the record was sufficient to 6 support the jury’s decision that the state disproved appellant’s self-defense theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erik Demetrius White, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“This is especially true whe[n] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Grady Dean Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This is 3 particularly true when resolution of the matter depends on conflicting testimony “because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jamah Griffis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jamah Griffis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [fact finder].” d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Edward Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[W]here resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, .
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015