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. Hughes, 749 N.W.2d 307.

96 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Hughes v. State 851 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2014
  • Hughes v. State 851 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2014
    State v. Hughes (Hughes I)
  • State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
    Planning activity consists of “facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which showed he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
    When a defendant claims that the State’s direct evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, “ ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.’ ” 1 ().
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
    Premeditation does not require “ ‘proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill.’ ” ().
  • Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
  • Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
    Planning activity includes “facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
    Planning activity consists of “facts about how and what the defendant did prior to the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
    We recognize that “[j]uries are generally ‘in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.’ ” Andersen, d at 329 (); see Al-Naseer, d at 473 (“We recognize that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.”).
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
  • 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 “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotations omitted).
  • 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. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
    Premeditation “requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.” , 312 n. 2 (Minn.2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
    (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Cruz-Ramirez 771 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2009
    If those three prongs are met, then we “assess[ ] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
    -13 (Minn.2008) (discussing Bernhardt).