Cited by

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

162 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 5 reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
A disqualification motion is not evaluated from “the perspective of a chief judge,” but rather from the perspective of a “reasonable examiner”: “an objective, unbiased layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances.” n.8 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Then, we “independently examine the reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn from [those] circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Therefore, the circumstances proved are identified “in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Terrell Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The underlying facts are summarized in the supreme court’s review of Pratt’s first trial
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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 2 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the 7 guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a jury’s guilty verdict, this court “determine[s] 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. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Therefore, the circumstances proved are identified “in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr. 854 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The code defines “impartial” and “impartiality” 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014