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. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (quoting State v. Merrill (citations omitted).
  • State v. Johnson 417 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Johnson 417 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    “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 of the offense charged.” ().
  • State v. Scharfencamp 416 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Scharfencamp 416 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. King 414 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 405 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Harris 405 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1987
    This court has also noted the difference between tests for sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction and jury instructions, and that other courts have held “that not every sufficiency of the evidence test should be read to the jury.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Skinner 403 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Our review of sufficiency of the evidence is limited to ascertaining whether the trier of fact gave “due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the State’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * ( ).
  • State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Eli 402 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Eli 402 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    However, there is no evidence in the record to support his speculations and no evidence “that was consistent with any reasonable hypothesis of [Eli’s] innocence or inconsistent with his guilt.”
  • State v. Sollman 402 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Appellate courts must determine if the trial court, “ ‘giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty’ of the offense charged.” ().
  • State v. Jones 402 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Jones 402 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Yeager 399 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Yeager 399 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Dahm 394 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Dahm 394 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    *591 (citations omitted) ().
  • State v. Vadnais 394 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vadnais 394 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sutherlin 393 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    * * * (citations omitted) ().
  • State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sheldon 391 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (the reviewing court must assume that the jury believed all the state’s witnesses and disbelieved all contradictory testimony).
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Knowlton 383 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 1986
    Thus, this court is limited to ascertaining whether the trial court, “ ‘giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty’ of the offense charged.” ().
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 320 , State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48, 52
  • State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Erdman 383 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blair 381 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blair 381 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Moore 381 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Moore 381 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986