Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pendleton, 759 N.W.2d 900.

105 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Riddle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[a]ssessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury”).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Joseph Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Although prosecutors may not personally endorse witnesses, the [s]tate is free to argue that a particular witness is credible.”
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jaylin Deshawn Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Paul Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]n order to be an accomplice, the witness must have played a knowing role in the crime—the witness’ mere presence at the scene is not sufficient.”
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sean David Kilbo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
during the time period when the injury was thought to have occurred.” When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the [jury] rejected any evidence inconsistent with the verdict.”
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
We have found motive evidence when the “defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated and [the] defendant was angry with [the victim,]” including “evidence that defendant and the victim had argued the night before the killing.”
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Assessing witness credibility and the weight given to witness testimony is exclusively the province of the jury.” (“As the fact finder, the jury is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines *587 which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” (quotation omitted)); see also Scruggs, d at 645 (stating that “[i]
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 835 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact finder rejected any evidence inconsistent with the verdict.”
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bakdash 830 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, there is substantial evidence that appellant intended to cause the death of a person, particularly here where appellant indicated that his actions were done in response to M.D.’s directive to “hit him.” Consistent with Holliday, Ford, Cruz-Ramirez, and Livingston, appellant’s intent to hit someone wi
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
A witness is an accomplice if “the witness could have been indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
See, -11 (Minn.2009); -58 (Minn.2008).
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
We have also found motive evidence supporting a finding of premeditation when there is “evidence that defendant’s relationship with the victim had deteriorated and that defendant was angry with [the victim,]” including “evidence that defendant and the victim had argued the night before the killing.” see also State v. *601 Pendleton, (finding the evidence sufficient to support a finding of premeditation in part because motive evidence showed the defendant and victim had fought on the night of the
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
754 n. 2 (Minn.2008); , 911 n. 3 (Minn.2009).
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that appellate courts defer to fact-finder’s credibility determinations).
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
See, -13 (Minn.2009) (holding that a prosecutor’s disparagement of defense during closing argument was improper but did not warrant reversal because the court issued a curative instruction).
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
The test for whether a particular “witness is an accomplice is whether the witness could have been ‘indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.’ ” ().
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
A witness is an accomplice if the witness could have been “indicted and convicted for the crime with which the defendant is charged.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010