Cited by

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

280 citing documents.

State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
13, 1987); ( (deferring to district court’s evaluation of witness credibility when district court did not believe defendant’s explanations)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of T.C.J. 689 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bernardi 678 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Kramer 668 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“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].”
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
Johnson, d at 435 ; Merrill, d at 111 .
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
“[Wjeighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In Re the Welfare of S.M.J. 556 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re the Welfare of S.M.J. 556 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Holmberg 545 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Holmberg 545 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“[W]eighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
State v. Gamez 494 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Gamez 494 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In making this determination, we must “assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“[Wjeighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Erickson 454 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
State v. Triplett 435 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1989
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Moore 433 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and remembering that “weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury,” we believe the jury could reasonably have believed the testimony of the children.
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ruberg v. State 428 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(-29 (Minn.1978)), (citations omitted).
State v. Hazley 428 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hazley 428 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1988