Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jacobson, 326 N.W.2d 663.

50 citing documents.

Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Jacobson , see also Nelson , d at 860 (“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“In most arson cases, it is necessary for the state to prove its case with circumstantial evidence, since usually no one is on the premises at the time the fire is discovered.”).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(recognizing that arson convictions often rest upon circumstantial evidence because there are typically no witnesses at the scene when the fire is discovered).
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Battin 474 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Battin 474 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
State v. Pilcher 472 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1991
Peller v. Harris 464 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Peller v. Harris 464 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The general rule is that a new trial will not be granted unless the newly discovered evidence is so important “it will probably produce a different result at another trial.” Disch, d at 919 ().
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. Formo 416 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Formo 416 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Winston 412 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Winston 412 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
Jacobson v. Rochester Communications Corp. 410 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1987
Jacobson v. Rochester Communications Corp. 410 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1987
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
909 , 93 L.Ed.2d 859 (1987)
State v. Guy 409 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Guy 409 N.W.2d 248 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. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Iverson 396 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
(citing State v. Morgan, 290 Minn. 558, 561 , State v. Kaster, 211 Minn. 119, 121 , 300 N.W.
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
(citing State v. Morgan, 290 Minn. 558, 561 , State v. Raster, 211 Minn. 119, 121 , 300 N.W.
Disch v. Helary, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Disch v. Helary, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The general rule is that a new trial will not be granted unless the newly discovered evidence is so important “it will probably produce a different result at another trial.”
State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
State v. Marhoun 361 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1985
Since Marhoun’s conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, this court’s is also relevant.
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the court held that in the prosecution for second-degree arson, evidence that the fire had been intentionally set and of defendant’s possible motive was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
State v. Garasha 358 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1984
State v. Garasha 358 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1984
130 (Minn.1984), we stated, “Generally, in order to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evi *660 dence, the defendant has to establish that the evidence was not known to him at the time of trial, that his failure to learn of it was not due to lack of diligence, that the evidence is material, and that it will probably produce an acquittal at a retrial.”
State v. Rean 353 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1984
State v. Rean 353 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1984
State v. Swanson 353 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1984
State v. Swanson 353 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1984
State v. Klotter, 274 Minn. 58, 64