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. Stein, 776 N.W.2d 709.

119 citing documents.

  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    Nonetheless, “we have recognized that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (alteration and quotation omitted).
  • State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
    In the first step of our analysis, “we defer to the factfinder [but] for the second step, we engage in our own examination of the reasonableness of the inferences.” Id.; (plurality opinion) (“In assessing the inferences drawn from the circumstances proved, the inquiry is not simply whether the inferences leading to guilt are reasonable.
  • State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
    to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” ( (plurality opinion)).
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
    Consistent with our standard of review, we defer “to the jury’s acceptance of the evidence that supports the verdict and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with circumstances proved by the State’s evidence.” Andersen, d at 329 () (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
    With respect to circumstantial evidence, “ ‘our first task is to identify the circumstances proved.’ ” Andersen, d at 329 ( (plurality opinion)).
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
    -74 (Minn. 2010); -30 (Minn.2010); (plurality opinion).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
    “When reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, ‘our first task is to identify the circumstances proved.’ ” ( (plurality opinion)).
  • State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
    f Justice Page but write separately to restate that the majority’s analytical framework “unduly narrows our traditional standard of review for circumstantial evidence by replacing the term ‘circumstantial evidence’ with ‘circumstances proved’ and then restricting review of ‘circumstances proved’ to only those circumstances deemed by the court to be implicit in the guilty verdict.” (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring).
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    But to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must also consider “whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt.”