Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hawes, 801 N.W.2d 659.

113 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To be clear, the first step of our circumstantial-evidence test protects these principles —it requires an appellate court to winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute “the circumstances proved.” (disregarding evidence inconsistent with the verdict).
Wilbert Arnold Sandstrom, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A. Circumstances Proved Assuming that the jury credited the testimony of the state’s witnesses and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, see State v. Hawes , d 659, 668 (Minn. 2011), we identify the following circumstances proved.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. M. L.-T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In other words, in determining which circumstances were proved, “we disregar d testimony that is in consistent with the verdict.” -69 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; – 69 (Minn. 2011) (“Under this standard, we disregard testimony that is inconsistent with the verdict.”).
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
To be clear, the first step of our circumstantial-evidence test protects these principles—it requires an appellate court to winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute “the circumstances proved.” (disregarding evidence inconsistent with the verdict).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Marlon James Sands Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Marlon James Sands Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gebreamlak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gebreamlak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marlon Rashaad Robertson 884 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wuollet contends that the district court erred “when it denied [his] motion for a new trial because there was a reasonable probability that allegations of prior bad acts on the face of a harassment restraining order affected the outcome of the trial.” “[Appellate courts] review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bahtuoh, d at 810; (“To be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, the defendant does not need to have participated actively in the actual commission of the crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell 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. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy the intent element of aiding and abetting an offense, the state must prove the defendant “had knowledge of the crime and intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky James Bedell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. A. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In circumstantial evidence cases, the circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The state must prove that the defendant “had knowledge of the crime and intended his presence or actions to further the commission of that crime.”
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
(stating that a jury may infer a defendant intended his actions to aid the commission of a crime by, among other things, his presence at the crime scene and lack of objection to the crime).
State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by