Cited by

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

280 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Moore, d at 88; (stating that weighing credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury).
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong 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. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Michael Openshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A statement is contemporaneous for purposes of this rule so long as “there is little time to consciously fabricate a story.”
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This is particularly true when resolution of the matter depends on conflicting testimony “because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
Timothy Neil Koebnick v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy Neil Koebnick v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that it is the exclusive function of the fact-finder to weigh credibility).
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rajab Ibn Dawun Abdul Jabbar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The court “will construe the record most favorably to the state and will assume the evidence supporting the conviction was believed and the contrary evidence disbelieved.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.” 1
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The court “will construe the record most favorably to the state and will assume the evidence supporting the conviction was believed and the contrary evidence disbelieved.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Leith Renville Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury).
State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
State v. Farrah 735 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2007
801(d)(1)(D); 584 (Minn.1980) (holding that statements made within a few minutes of an accident were close enough in time to qualify under Rule 801(d)(1)(D), although statements made almost an hour after the incident were taken too long after the incident to qualify).
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007