Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312.

173 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1372 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 312, 326 (Minn. 2005) (finding the defendant was not entitled to a new trial when his verdict involved only logical inconsistencies and not legal inconsistencies).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Columbus Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But the prosecutor may “argue reasonable inferences from the facts presented at trial.” -28 (Minn. 2005) (rejecting plain- error claim based on prosecutor’s arguments about objectification of women and stating that, while the arguments “could be interpreted as going beyond the mere facts,” they were not prejudicial).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 887 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 887 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 2016
We “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing planning, activity, motive, and nature of killing); (discussing defendant’s actions before and after the murder).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The question of whether verdicts are legally inconsistent is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The verdict will not be overturned if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding, in relevant part, that “where the confinement or removal of the victim is completely incidental to the perpetration of a separate felony, it does not constitute kidnapping”)
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Leonard Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Even if the verdicts could be said to be logically inconsistent, that does not make them legally inconsistent, as “[n]othing in the constitution requires consistent verdicts.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(-75 (Minn. 2010); d 312, 319-20 (Minn. 2005); ).
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 312, 323 (Minn. 2005).
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Kidnapping Conviction In a kidnapping case, the confinement or removal “must be criminally significant in the sense of being more than merely incidental to the underlying crime, in order to justify a separate criminal sentence.” overruled on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing Ihnot, d at 587) (stating that the fourth and fifth factors of the Jones analysis are satisfied if the defendant’s credibility is a central issue in the case), d 62, 67 (Minn. 1993) (stating that the importance-of-defendant’s-testimony factor supports exclusion of impeachment evidence if, by admitting it, a defendant’s account of the events would not be heard by the jury).
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
We also recognized in Goodloe that after Moore we had reiterated that “a finding of premeditation does not require a specific length of time for deliberation.” Goodloe, d at 421 -22 ( ).
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We will not overturn a guilty verdict “if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the [fact-finder] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
“The verdict will not be overturned if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013