Cited by

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

635 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Al–Naseer, d 469, 474 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the circumstantial evidence context, the Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the state’s case is based largely, or entirely, on circumstantial evidence, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if and only if “no other reasonable, rational inferences [exist] that are inconsistent with guilt.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Al–Naseer, (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
We have determined, however, that a higher level of scrutiny is warranted if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.2 See, (Minn. 2 The standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence requires a two-step analysis.
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that circumstantial evidence “warrants heightened scrutiny”).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(-75 (Minn. 2010); d 312, 319-20 (Minn. 2005); ).
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
warrants heightened scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010) 6 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Miles asserts that his conviction must be reversed because it is supported only by circumstantial evidence that allowed reasonable inferences other than guilt.
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Devon Scott Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Devon Scott Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We will affirm if the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and “inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved, Smith, d at 137, and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with rational hypotheses other than guilt,” State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Richard Allen Gumphrey v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014