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. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425.

228 citing documents.

  • State v. Lee 391 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lee 391 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Teske 390 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Teske 390 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stoffel 388 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rahier 389 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stoffel 388 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rahier 389 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Munoz 385 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Zgodava 384 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Zgodava 384 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
    We set forth the general standard for reviewing a jury verdict in a : In reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence we must determine whether, under the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.
  • State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Kennie 381 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the Minnesota Supreme Court, explaining the standard for reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, said: In reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence we must determine whether, under the facts in the record and any *16 legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably con
  • State v. Buchmann 380 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and it is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”
  • State v. Peterson 379 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Peterson 379 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Folley 378 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hook 376 N.W.2d 296 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit 373 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1985
  • State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit 373 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1985
    “The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and it is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” see also
  • State v. Decker 371 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Decker 371 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    DECISION Under well-established principles of appellate review of criminal convictions, the record supports appellant’s convictions.
  • State v. Anderson 370 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 370 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Carlson 369 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • In Re the Welfare of T.M.V. 368 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    We find no persuasive similarity between this case and T.M.V.’s authority, (reversing a conviction for aiding and abetting a murder).
  • State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
    this court described the general standard for reviewing a jury verdict: In reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence we must determine whether, under the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of
  • State v. Stewart 360 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Stewart 360 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Gard 358 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    On review appellate courts “will not reverse any findings of fact unless they are clearly in error, but * * * will make an independent determination of vol-untariness on the facts as found.” (standard for sufficiency of the evidence).
  • State v. Prior 356 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Prior 356 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1984