DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Turnipseed, 297 N.W.2d 308.

186 citing documents.

  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
    Although we have agreed that a jury need not be instructed that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, (citing Holland, 348 U.S. at 139— 40, 75 S.Ct.
  • Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
    A defendant must show that the denial “prejudiced defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”
  • Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
  • Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “The reviewing court must examine the circumstances before the trial court at the time the motion [for continuance] was made to determine whether the trial court’s decision prejudiced defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
    al evidence alone, all circumstances proved must be consistent with that conclusion and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.” Such an instruction is not required, as we have made plain that instructing on direct and circumstantial evidence with an instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient, -13 (Minn.1980).
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Church 577 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 1998
    -59 (Mnn.1991); State v. *720 Turnipseed
  • State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Hare 575 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Pendleton 567 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Jones 556 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1996
    A defendant contesting the language chosen by the court “must show that the substituted instruction contained a material misstatement of law when read in the context of the instructions as a whole.”
  • State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
    We note, however, this court said that "[a]lthough the phrase 'inconsistent with any other rational conclusion’ has appeared in many of the cases concerning circumstantial evidence decided by this court, we have never held the phrase to be mandatory.” We believe that Turnipseed would control here and that the trial cou
  • State v. Hanson 514 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Hanson 514 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    In order to show prima facie evidence of error, a party must show an instruction contained a “material misstatement of law when read in the context of the *603 instructions as a whole.”
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Jolley 508 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1993
    See, (not every sufficiency of the evidence test articulated by the supreme court should be read to the jury by the trial court in instructions).
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Day 501 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Day 501 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    In order to show prima facie evidence of error, an appellant must show the instruction given contained “a material misstatement of the law when read in the context of the instructions as a whole.”
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    -13 (Minn.1980), the supreme court held the jury was adequately instructed on circumstantial evidence even though it had not been instructed that such evidence had to be “inconsistent with any * * * rational conclusion [other than guilt].” The supreme court has reaffirmed that the “rational hypothesis of innocence
  • State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Miller 488 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Stroud 459 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Fidel 451 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    “In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty [or not guilty] of the offense charged.” ().