Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868.

162 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When conducting a sufficiency review, we carefully consider the evidence to “determine whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the record would reasonably support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence 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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we determine whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the record would reasonably support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary 882 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Impartiality” is defined as the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.” (quoting Terminology, Minnesota Code of Jud.
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the court considers the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” when determining the circumstances proved).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Areial Jean Stoecker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Areial Jean Stoecker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION Stoecker argues that the state did not prove that she intended to strike T.K.1 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we determine whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the record would reasonably support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Manuel Demmings Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The elements of theft by swindle are: (i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The elements of theft by swindle are: (i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives heightened scrutiny.3
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
Jedidiah Dean Troxel v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2016
“Impartiality” means the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues.” (quoting Terminology, -Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION I. Sufficiency of the Eyewitness Identification Evidence In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt, this court “determine[s] whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the record would reasonably support the [factfinder’s] conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. SerShawn Copone Nicholson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Conduct Rule 2.11(A), as viewed “from the perspective of a reasonable examiner who is an objective, unbiased layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances,” n.8 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by