Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bolstad, 686 N.W.2d 531.

51 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Adam Taylor Fravel Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Furthermore, the state’s argument need not be “colorless.” State v. Bolstad
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict and assuming 13 “that the jury disbelieved any testimony in conflict with the result reached,” (quotation omitted), there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that Doan-Hanson was guilty of the charged offenses during the charged offense-date range.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James Andre Woodard, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
543 (Minn. 2004) (expressing concern about questions implicitly asking jurors to “identify with the victim”).
Jason Lee Bolstad Minn. 2021
More details about Bolstad’s conviction are set forth in his direct appeal, State v. Bolstad (Bolstad I), –38 (Minn. 2004), and in his second postconviction petition appeal, Bolstad v. State (Bolstad II), –95 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.” (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We review convictions based on circumstantial evidence with particular scrutiny, , and apply a two -step analysis when reviewing the sufficiency of such evidence
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Troy William Drusch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 531, 544 (Minn. 2004) ; Tucker v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Bolstad , (stating that in evaluating misconduct claims, Minnesota courts review “the full trial record,” and then analyzing questions during voir dire).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
We review convictions based on circumstantial evidence with “particular scrutiny.”
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
-44 (Minn.2004) (declining to decide whether the State’s voir dire questions were error, and instead dismissing the defendant’s argument on the ground that any error was not prejudicial).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
Nor, Ladies and Gentlemen, does it mean doubt created by the ingenuity or the imagination * * * of counsel.” we considered whether a prosecutor undermined the presumption of innocence.
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 735 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
When applying this standard, however, “it remains the province of the jury to determine the credibility and weight of the circumstantial evidence and we will continue to assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved the defendant’s witnesses.”
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005