Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320.

590 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2684-85 (1978) (holding that a court may declare a warrant void if it is ba sed on a reckless or deliberate material misrepresentation); (indicating that the Franks test applies equally to material omissions).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Elwin Louis Klimek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
(quoting State v. Andersen , , 329 (Minn. 2010) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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. Andersen , , 330 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing State v. Andersen , ).
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Andersen , , 327 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Doyle , , 250 (Minn. 1983).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2684 (1978)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In order to invalidate a search warrant on the basis of asserted misrepresentations, Young must show that: “(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2 ) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing State v. Andersen , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (“[W]hen reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, our first task is to identify the circumstances proved.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We also note that even under the heightened standard of review, we “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, - 30 (Minn. 2010) (“[W]hen reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, our first task is to identify the circumstances proved.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Accordingly, if a defendant seeks to invalidate a warrant under Franks, the defendant must show that “(1) the affiant ‘deliberately made a statement 15 that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,’ and (2) ‘the statement was material to the probable cause determination.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
State v. Robinson 921 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 2019
State v. Andersen , , 329 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Andersen , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Andersen , (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S. Ct. at 2684-85).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Juries are generally in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” State v. Andersen , d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
A17-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See id.; see also State v. Andersen , 10 (Minn. 2010) (reasoning that a defendant’s “f alse statements to police in an attempt to create an alibi” were part of a complete chain establish ed by circumstantial evidence that defendant was the killer).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
9 of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mi stake occurred.” State v. Andersen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer ‘to the [factfinder]’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’” -99 (Minn. 2013) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, State v. Andersen ( Andersen I ), , 323 (Minn. 2010), and affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of his first postconviction petition, Andersen v. State ( Andersen II ), , 14 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Andersen , , 329-30 (Minn. 2010) (explaining and applying circumstantial-evidence analysis).
Nathan Thomas Tow-Arnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We are mindful that “[j]uries are generally in the best position to weigh the cred ibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quoting State v. Andersen , ).