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. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
See State v. Andersen , , 332 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that we consider the circumstances proved as a whole, not each circumstance proved in isolation).
Majinieke Vasha Thompson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Andersen , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No deference is given to “the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” -30 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5 great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not set them aside unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Andersen
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
No deference is given to “the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” -30 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that juries are in the best position to weigh the credibility of evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Under the first factor of the circumstan tial-evidence standard , this court must “identify the circumstances proved.” State v. Andersen , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Accordingly, if a defendant seeks to invalidate a warrant under Franks, the defendant 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.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
-72 (Minn. 2016) (considering whether “[w]hen viewed as a whole, the circumstances proved supported] a rational inference that Robertson was the shooter”); (explaining that “[w]e review the circumstantia
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Earl Alfonso Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Earl Alfonso Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2684 (1978)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gebreamlak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gebreamlak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(addressing claim that constitutional right to counsel was violated when calls to attorney’s cell phone were monitored and recorded 6 in an appeal from judgment of conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark William Latimer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
identify the circumstances proved, giving deference ‘to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” -42 (Minn. 2010) ().
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016