Cited by

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

352 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lee Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Larhonda Betty Spiller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright 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 sufficient.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rosalee Ann Grace Pickett Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Murtada Ahmed Abdelrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court will “not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with 4 due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requi rement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Scott Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christina Vanda Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (Minn. showing Officer Zizzo running towards the sidewalk.
State of Minnesota v. David Garrett Tynes Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joe Mickelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Daylyn Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wilbert Arnold Sandstrom v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Blanchard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” 2 To convict appellant of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the state had to prove that he knowingly possessed the firearm and is in eligible to possess a firearm.
State of Minnesota v. Gloria Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was s ufficient to permit the juror s to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Owen Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Beverly Nicole Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We 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 doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Richard Schuelke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lor Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, wa s sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will not disturb the verdict if the fa ct-finder, “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 of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (q uotation omitted).
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
See State v. Ortega , , 101 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that cleaning up and disposing of evidence were efforts to evade detection and supported a finding of premeditation); State v. Leake , , 321 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that burning evidence supported finding of premeditation); State v. Lodermeier , , 398 (Minn
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , , 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donavon Allen St. Claire Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Odall Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bowen 910 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , , 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will not disturb the verdict if the fact-finder, “acting with due regard for th e presumption of innocence a nd the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Usually, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lamar Terrelle Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Th e verdict will not be disturbed “if the [fact-finder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could r easonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Lloyd Pogatchnik Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court limits its review to a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to r each [their] verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Noe Hugo Toscano Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
urder because the evidence shows that he acted in self-defense to defend himself and his friends.1 In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeriod David Knerr Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().