DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

173 citing documents.

  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.”
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
    cert, denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct.
  • State v. McFee 721 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 2006
  • State v. McFee 721 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 2006
    We also examined the prior conviction exception in State v. Leake, where we noted that, “after Blakely , the prior conviction exception recognized in Apprendi retains vitality and it is constitutional for a defendant’s sentence to be increased based on a prior conviction without submitting the fact of the conviction to the jury.”
  • State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
    in support of the argument that an express waiver is not required before a defendant’s plea hearing statements may be used to enhance his sentence.
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
    “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 [contrary evidence].” , *419 319 (Minn.2005).
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Colbert 716 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 2006
    However, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence will stand only if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” -20 (Minn.2005) ().
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
    Minn.2001) (construing the term "statutory maximum” from Apprendi to be the maximum sentence authorized by the legislature); (holding that Apprendi was not implicated where only the minimum term of imprisonment was affected by a finding by the court without a jury, so long as the sentence was within the statutory maximum)
  • State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence will stand only if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable *431 doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” -20 (Minn.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
    A conviction based on circumstantial evidence will stand only if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” -20 (Minn.2005) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
    1254, 1257 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (holding that in determining character of prior conviction, court is generally limited to examining certain court documents and statutory offense definition); (same).