Cited by

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

636 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Emilio Nieto Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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. Frank Garrett Quentin Walter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This record includes direct evidence of Walter’s physical control of the car, such as testimony from the 1 When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the first step “is to identify the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jantile Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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. Kemar Anthony Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jerimiah Micheal McFee Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Brian Adam Burba Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John McClatchey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-03 (Minn. 2017) (discussing circumstantial-evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Clifton Dale Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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 exclu de beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bounkieng Sinthavong Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When evaluating 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. Raphael Ulisses Gurneau Minn. Ct. App. 2022
warrants heightened scrutiny.” .
State of Minnesota v. Carl Joseph Matusovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Porte , ( 6 (Minn. 2010)).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Edward Trambell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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. Marcus Anthony Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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 13 guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, vs Tyrone Demetrius Boswell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Lonnie Jr. Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Roger Bruce Nahl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Cayla Jean Sandven Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Amed Dommer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(holding that heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Freddie Tyrone Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt .” State v. Peterson , ().
State of Minnesota v. Todd Gerald Pletcher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing heightened standard of review for circumstantial evidence), review denied (Minn. Jun.
State of Minnesota v. David John Kangas, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-1588 Minn. 2021
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence, however, warrants heightened scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Jordan Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Jama Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The circumstances proved 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. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 469, 480 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Vincent Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Al-Naseer , 73 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. James Edward Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also State v. Porte , - 10 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing heightened standard of review for circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lamar Mutcherson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Albert James Conant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lee Brame Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When a conviction i s based on circumstantial evidence, however, we apply “heightened scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 When reviewing the sufficiency of direct evidence, we ask “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them” allow the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof, “to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quoting State v. Moore , ).
State of Minnesota v. Dzenan Jay Kamencic Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Allison Ann Mastin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
7 A conviction based on circumstantial evid ence receives “heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer
State of Minnesota v. Maung Soe Myint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Farookh Mohamed Abdulazeez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jamshid Abdugafarovi Akramov Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Michael Eugene Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3-74 (Minn. 2010) (indicating that the circumstantial evidence standard of review applies when a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence) .
State of Minnesota v. Carter John Ibberson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Al-Naseer , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Joseph Hamer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kim Dale Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we “review the evidence to determine whether the facts in the record and t he 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. Liban Khalif Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The circumstances proved 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Henry Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer
State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Ahmed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2020
warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Boisjolie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Okuch Odiel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Percy Leonard French Minn. Ct. App. 2020