Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349.

134 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state must prove “the facts necessary to justify consideration of [an] out-of-state conviction[] in determining a defenda nt’s criminal history score.” State v. Outlaw , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We have held that the district court may properly determine “which of [a criminal defendant’s] out-of-state convictions are felonies.” (Minn.App.
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
At sentencing, the state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts “necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evi dence to establish a pattern of criminal conduct, an appellate court is “limited to determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the [factfinder]” and the record is reviewed “in the light most favorable to the [factf inder’s] determination.” State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Citing State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008), Jones broadly claims that “identification based on limited or fleeting observation requires corroboration.” But that case actually states that “[c]orroboration is required when a single witness’s identification of the defendant is made after only ‘fleeting or
State v. Washington 894 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Washington 894 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A ‘pattern of criminal conduct’ is established upon ‘proof of criminal conduct similar, but not identical, in motive, purpose, results, participants, victims or other shared characteristics.’” 14 (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Williams Wermers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
present all proper inferences to be drawn therefrom.” ( review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008)).
State of Minnesota v. Burt Gregory Alan Stover Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Burt Gregory Alan Stover Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The state has the burden of proving “the facts necessary to justify consideration of [an] out-of-state conviction in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But, “[a] prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence produced at trial,” and “is free to make legitimate arguments on the basis of all proper inferences from the evidence introduced,” d 349, 358 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “a prosecutor is free to make legitimate arguments on the basis of all proper inferences from the evidence introduced”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlow Shelton McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2016
nce [to support a finding that the present offense was committed as part of a pattern of criminal conduct], [appellate courts] are limited to determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury,” after “review[ing] the record in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination.” 10 review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Archester Rodgers, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Archester Rodgers, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Don Quenzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Don Quenzer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Reece, d at 825-26; review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008)
State of Minnesota v. Luis Armando Cubas Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Armando Cubas Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The state has the burden to prove “the facts necessary to justify consideration of an out-of-state conviction in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence ‘the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.’” (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stone 767 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-56 (Minn. App.2008) (“Ordinarily, failure to object to *745 evidence at trial waives the issue on appeal.”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).