Cited by

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

636 citing documents.

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.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, 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 [s]tate.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ircumstantial evidence, we apply a heightened standard of review and (1) identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then (2) “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” - 4 74, 477 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted); (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And the “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In assessing 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. Pierre Corey Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that the appellate court reviews the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn therefrom to decide whether the evidence supports the guilty verdict).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Therefore, in reviewing a denial of a judgment of acquittal, “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. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
warrants heightened scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, 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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the [factfinder’s] acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez 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. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And the “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse 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. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Sam, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2015 WL 648220, at *6 (Minn. App. Feb.