Cited by

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

636 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larhonda Betty Spiller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Keith Ward Hohlen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because the state offered primarily circumstantial evidence of Bradley’s intent, we apply “heightened scrutiny” to review that circumstantial evidence.5 (“A state of mind generally is proved circumstantially .
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lannon Lavar Burdunice Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A sta te of mind, such as intent, is “ generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” .
State of Minnesota v. Randal Edward Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In assessing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.” -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy William Hinds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require “heightened scrutiny.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Al-Naseer , (alteration in original) ().
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Al-Naseer , , 473 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the heightened-review standard, we must then determine if “there are no other reasonable rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Murtada Ahmed Abdelrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
to make [him] an offer rather than [Abdelrahim] making one himself.” But we “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Roy Kiefat, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing that “the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence”); (“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”).
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Schnagl , (), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. David Garrett Tynes Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wilbert Arnold Sandstrom v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ne; and (12) the drugs were thrown out of Barker’s passenger -side window as he fled from polic e. Barker concedes that “these facts probably support a rational inference that he physically possessed the drugs in Minnesota.” For the evidence to be sufficient, “it must also be true that there are no other reasonable rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.”
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circumstantial -evidence standard to individual elements of a criminal offense that were proved by circumstantia l evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Guevara, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, vs Clayton Robert Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Sawina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Robert Kampsula Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(applying the circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of a criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circum stantial-evidence standard to 1 Hines initially alleged prosecutorial misconduct as an additional basis for relief, but later withdrew this argument.
State of Minnesota v. Beverly Nicole Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).
State of Minnesota v. Lor Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Al–Naseer , -75 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Duane Rossetti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted )
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Because an inferential step was required for the jury to conclude that Bentley knew of the DANCO based on this evidence, we apply the 4 circumstantial-evidence standard of review.1 - 75 (Minn. 2010) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of a criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
1 See State v. Al-Naseer , , 473 (Minn. 2010) ("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. Jake Richard Mattern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Michael Beach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Al-Naseer , , 473-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circumstantial-evidence standard to individual elements of a criminal offense that were proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
warrants stricter scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Barrios-German Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” Sam, d at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)