Cited by

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

349 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alphonse Reff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alphonse Reff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation and citations omitted).
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alie Christine Theodore Dorn 875 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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 of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury 3 believed the [s]tate’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Yunmie Quiwonkpa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Yunmie Quiwonkpa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Deshun Dye 871 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts undertake “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. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In considering a claim of insufficient 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. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts undergo “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 [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” (quotation omitted).