Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fort, 768 N.W.2d 335.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Fort , -43 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a warrant was supported by probable cause when the application stated that police had new equipment that could allow them to find evidence, namely traces of blood, that was not revealed by a previous search); State v. Zanter , -34 (Minn. 1995) (holding that a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d at 362; State v. Palmer , see also State v. Fort , (concluding that burglar’s statements to victim that “if you don’t shut up, I’m going to kill you” and “now you’re going to die” verbalized the planning activity and were sufficient to prove premeditation).
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A warrant is supported by probable cause if the totality of the circumstances show that there is a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
3 Third, Griffin contends that his two first-degree murder convictions, for the murder of one victim, violate Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2014).2
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A search warrant is supported by probable cause if there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A search warrant is supported by probable cause if there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(d 335, 344 (Minn. 2009)).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
A warrant is supported by probable cause if, on the totality of the circumstances, there is a “ ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ ” ().
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(characterizing defendant’s statements that “‘if you don’t shut up, I’m going to kill you” and “now you’re going to die” as circumstantial evidence of defendant’s state of mind).
Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Probable cause is established “if there is a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Leon Abb Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Leon Abb Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“We consider whether the information presented in the affidavits provided to support probable cause presents specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
See Tscheu, d at 403-04 (upholding the postconviction court’s determination that new evidence was not credible given the inconsistencies between the new evidence and the original trial evidence); (holding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, after holding an evidentiary hearing, that claimed newly discovered evidence was “simply too doubtful to support ...
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
To be material and not merely cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful, “the confession of a purported alternative perpetrator must ‘come forward in a credible manner from a credible source.’” ().
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
(concluding the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when, after a hearing, it found the evidence proffered to show an alternative perpetrator committed the crime “lacked credibility”); Bowles, d at 534-35 (holding a recantation was not likely to produce a result more favorable t
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
Cooper, d at 180 ; -44 (Minn.2009) (finding sufficient evidence of premeditation when the victim had been “stabbed 44 times in a particularly brutal manner,” “the stabbing took place in three areas of the house and involved multiple blows to vital locations,” and the forensic evidence indicated “that the attack occurred over a long
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
See also State v. Tomassoni -34 (Minn.2010) (recognizing that evidence of premeditation can include testimony that “a short amount of time elapsed between” two gunshots); (concluding that a burglar who stated “if you don’t shut up, I’m going to kill you,” and “now you’re going to die” when the victim continued to scream verbalized the planning activity and was “sufficient to prove premeditation”).
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
(“A search warrant is supported by probable cause if there is a fam probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
newly discovered evidence should be granted if: “(1) the evidence was not known to him or his counsel at the time of trial; (2) the failure to learn of the new evidence was not because of lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is material and is not impeaching, cumulative, or doubtful; and (4) the evidence is likely to produce an acquittal or more favorable result for the defendant.”