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. Threinen, 328 N.W.2d 154.

56 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    See, (concluding that prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing that “if we are to have law enforcement in this country it has to come with the fair and impartial deliberations of a jury 10 such as yourselves”); (concluding that prosecutor engaged in misconduct by arguing that jury should determine “what kind of conduct would be tolerated on the streets” ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    It is misconduct for a prosecutor to suggest “that the jury represent[s] the people of the community and that their verdict [will] determine what kind of conduct would be tolerated on the streets.” State v. Threinen
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    See State v. Threinen , (argued misconduct for prosecutor to suggest that “jur y represented the people of the community and that their verdict would determine what kind of conduc t would be tolerated on the streets”); State v. Clark , (argued misconduct for prosecutor to suggest that ju
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    In closing arguments, a prosecutor cannot suggest “that the jury represent[s] the people of the community and that their verdict would determine what kind of conduct would be tolerated on the streets.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Pourrier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    to argue that this statement by the prosecutor was improper.
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
    (prosecutors “should not emphasize accountability to such an extent as to divert the jury’s attention from its true role”); (comments suggesting that the jury represented the people of the community and that the verdict would determine the kind of conduct tolerated on the streets improperly injected issues broader than guilt or innocence); State v. Clark, 291 Minn. 79, 82 , (statement suggesting
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    A *47 conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the “ ‘reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.’ ” (), ce rt.
  • State v. Alton 432 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Alton 432 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roehl 409 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. McBroom 394 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Circumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence so long as the circumstances proved “are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.”
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Berndt 392 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Andrews 388 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Nordstrum 385 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    A conviction based upon circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” (quoting State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • 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
    t most favorable to the verdict, but where a conviction is based substantially upon circumstantial evidence, as here, the result will be sustained on appeal only when “the ‘reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.’ ” (quoting State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334, cert.
  • State v. Race 383 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Daniels 380 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Anderson 379 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 1985
    A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence and will be upheld if the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” citing State v. Kotka, 277 Minn. 331, 334 , cert.
  • State v. Cusick 372 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Cusick 372 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garceau 370 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Garceau 370 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Balenger 359 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Balenger 359 N.W.2d 720 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hughes 355 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hughes 355 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Stokes 354 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Stokes 354 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when “the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” ().
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
    State v. Clark, 291 Minn. 79, 81-82 , -70 (1971).
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    (disapproving of argument that suggested the jury keep the crime problem in mind in determining the question of defendant’s guilt).
  • State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    He argues, as a result, that his conviction cannot be sustained unless the “reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.”