Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hanson, 800 N.W.2d 618.

133 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We give no deference to the factfinder here; rather, we independently decide whether the circumstances proved “form a complete chain that, 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. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, 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. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, 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. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Brad Hendrickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We next assess whether there are any other “reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first step is to identify the circumstances proved, deferring to the jury’s acceptance of proof of those circumstances, based on recognition that the jury “is 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.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, 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.” (citing Al-Naseer, d at 473).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
] evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed, evidence as to the manner of packaging, and other evidence.’ ” (quoting White, d at 912 ).
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court considers the record “in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012