Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See, e.g., Al-Naseer, d at 473-75 ; -20 (Minn.2005)
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013
State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 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. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
In making this determination, we “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.”
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
“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 [factfinder] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
§ 609.035 (2008) limited the imposition of upward departures); (referencing chapter 609 and chapter 244 to interpret a defendant’s term of imprisonment with the possibility of supervised release).
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
Like the knowledge requirement for a leaving-the-scene conviction, “[p]re~ meditation is a state of mind and, thus, generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” (“Because it ‘is a state of mind,’ premeditation is ‘generally proven through circumstantial evidence.’ ” (quoting Leake, d at 319, 321 )); see also Al-Naseer TV, d at 687 (“The proof of knowledge may be by circumstantial evi
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
(“When reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, 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 v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
And in State v. Hughes, we stated that “[c]ir-cumstantial evidence receives ‘the same weight as any other evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.’ ” ( (emphasis added)).
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
“When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” ().
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” ().
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
State v. Leake (Leake I)
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Romine 757 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
“When reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (“The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”).
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
When reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, we consider the argument as a whole, “rather than focusing on ‘particular phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.’ ” ().
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
326 n. 10 (Minn.2005); see Minn.Stat.
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “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 v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007