Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86.

352 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the [s]tate’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Ronaldo Serrano-Santana Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we normally conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Raymond Glaser, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Ortega , 0 (Minn. 2012) (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Franklin Derricotte, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Allison Ann Mastin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Ortega , 0 (Minn. 2012) (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Farookh Mohamed Abdulazeez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 believed the State’s witnesses and disbelie ved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In analyzing an argument that the eviden ce is insufficient to support a conviction, this court undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alipio Santiago Veitia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
did not testify that [Veitia] lacked permission to enter the house.” When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most f avorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Cortez Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 to the conviction, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lamar Tallman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota (A20-0305) (A20-0310) v. Dane Robert Mullen (A20-0305) (A20-0310) Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We assume the jury believed the [s]tate’ s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wendlin Linderman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jamshid Abdugafarovi Akramov Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Carter John Ibberson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Ortega , 0 (Minn. 2012) (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Yony Galan-Alvillar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ap pellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Chukwuebuke Ineh Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Quaas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we undertake “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Edward Lataris Easton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we undertake “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Donald Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Richard Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and d isbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Percy Leonard French Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Otto Rene Gonzalez Bautista Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
11 light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under this traditional standard of review, we condu ct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Patrick Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Yvonne Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Dean Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo nmn Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[and] assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelie ved any evidence to the contrary.” (citations and q uotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jon Andrew Burlingame Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Leigh Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota (A18-1999) (A18-1957,) v. Torrance Lee Royster (A18-1957) (A18-1999) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the traditional direct-evidence standard, we limit our review to “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the convic tion, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dakota James-Burcham Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We generally review claims of insufficient evidence by cond ucting a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Bazoff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the traditional direct-evidence standard, we limit our review to “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the convic tion, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jazmyne Amanda-May Shinabarger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kristin Ann Altepeter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We will not disturb the verdict if the fact -finder, “acting with due regard for the presumption 4 of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a convi ction, this court conducts 8 “a painstaking analysis of the re cord to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carla Leanne Keezer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a convi ction, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis o f the record to determine whe ther the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was suffi cient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing whether a conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis o f the record to determine whe ther the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was suffi cient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Xieng Khan Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “will not disturb the verdict if the [fact-finder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable d oubt, could reasonably 8 conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. Felix Antonio Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2019
W e will “not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega
Deondre Lashawn Bishop v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Pitts Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“And we will not disturb 3 the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”