Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469.

635 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When we assess the sufficiency of evidence, “we review the evidence to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Givins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We recognize that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.” State v. Al–Naseer
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Marshall Johnson, a/k/a Michael Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “review the evidence to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that factfinder is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anne Marie Hinrichs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anne Marie Hinrichs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And the “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a state of mind is generally proved through circumstantial evidence); (stating that convictions based on circumstantial evidence demand stricter scrutiny).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.” State v. Al–Naseer
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The chain formed by the circumstantial evidence must be complete, in view of the evidence as a whole, and lead “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any 12 reasonable inference other than guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–75 (Minn. 6 2010); (“Generally, if the state’s evidence on an element of an offense .
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[a] conviction based on circumstantial evidence .
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.” d 469, 481 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(discussing “heightened scrutiny” applied to convictions based on circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When we assess the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the evidence to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We recognize that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Theo Barry Putt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Theo Barry Putt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The State does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”