Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849.

301 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mohamud Hussein Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Tscheu , , 858 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Corrie Alexander Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses,” and will not disturb a guilty verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requiremen t of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was prove d guilty of the offense charged, -77 (M
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Karl Ackerson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And we “assume as we must that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved conflicting evidence,” and recognize that “the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence.” 861 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Andre Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Only a minimal amount of physical pain or injury is necessary in order to satisfy the definition of bodily harm.” State v. Tscheu , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lee Cooley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The supreme court has stated that plain error affects substantial rights “if [the error] had the effect of depriving the defenda nt of a fair trial.” State v. Tscheu , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[E]ven though verdicts based on circumstantial evidence may warrant stricter scrutiny, [appellate courts] still construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State ’s witnesses and disbelieved the def ense witnesses.”
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Tscheu , , 858 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Alec Martii Soderbloom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” n.7 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lamar Terrelle Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]here a defendant chooses to introduce evidence after his motion for judgment of acquittal has be en denied, we consider the whole record and not just the evidence produced by the State.” State v. Tscheu , n.7 (Minn. 2008) (citations an d quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Abdiqadir Noor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Autumn Blakey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[E]ven though verdicts based on circumstantial evidence may warrant stricter scrutiny, [appellate courts] still construe co nflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”
State v. Souder 902 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Souder 902 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sean Fitzgerald Pozzi Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the third prong of 15 the plain-error test is satisfied “if [the error] had the effect of depriving the defendant of a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Lee Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
However, (plurality opinion)
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Blanshan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A defendant “is entitled to have the district court make a determination of the Rule 609(a) issue outside the presence of the jury before the accused decides whether to testify.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that plain- error analysis applies to alleged confrontation error not objected to in district court).
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lionel Curtis Drew 889 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(Matthews II, unrelated to Matthews).
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An alternative rational hypothesis must be supported by more than “mere conjecture” and must “point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[C]ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when all the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of [the accused’s] guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “we still construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[C]ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when all the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of [the 6 accused’s] guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetrious Limel Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This essentially implicates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which “guarantees the accused the right to confront the witnesses against him.”
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting Griller, d at 741).
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jon Brothers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved 4 the defense witnesses.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jon Brothers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that “the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melody June Fay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence assumes that the jury disbelieved the defense witnesses); (stating that “the jury, within their discretion, was entitled to completely discount appellant’s explanation”), review deni