Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727.

279 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kacey Emmanuel Kamara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
(noting that “infliction of wounds to vital areas” and “[a]n indication that a shooter took careful aim at the victim” may indicate premeditation (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (noting that the “infliction of gunshot wounds
State of Minnesota v. Angie Lynn Schimming Minn. Ct. App. 2026
on the cheekbone with her knee.2 Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Troy James Bonkowske Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Raul Antonio Pavon Jiminez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(quotation omitted); (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Kayvon Julian Madison Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict that [it] did.” (); (providing that the same standard of review is applicable for assessing sufficiency of the evidence for court trials as jury trials).
State of Minnesota v. Keira Ann Marie Conkling Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 40 (quotation omitted); d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011) (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Lopez Bibiano Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Charquandra Charnetta Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Fredy Saavedra Olivar Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Brett Rodney Sanko Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. I. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
y of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted); see also State v. Palmer , (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the ev
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. Y. Q., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. John Tyrus Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. John Tyrus Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Mohamed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We assume that the jury “disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kelci Marie Meyers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kelci Marie Meyers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ashten Gregory Szathmary Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lafayette Temple Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Archie Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Ahmedfowzi Haji Ismail Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Palmer
State of Minnesota v. Kirk Keith Oxendine, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Edward Walker McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
nce, this court reviews the evidence presented at trial “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant wa s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Me’Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Me’Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jodi Linn Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James Wayne Gamble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Wayne Cota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ras-Solomon Marquis Braxton Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Geraldo Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Generally, a victim’s 4 Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Daniel Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Fredi Amilcar Sun Chajon Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Christopher Savon Ledbetter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Though an inference inconsistent with guilt need not be the most likely inference, appellate courts “will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone,”
State of Minnesota v. Terrion Lamar Sherman Minn. Ct. App. 2024
An appellate court uses “the same standard of review in [court] trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Shaketio Antonio Webster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. L. I., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. K. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. William Connell Walton Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. R. Z. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Coedy Lonzelle Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The verdict will not be overturned if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a 5 reasonable doubt, the factfinder could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deavion Ladell Beasley, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating we do not consider arguments lacking a citation to support legal authority).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Wolter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Standard of Review and Applicable Law Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Shante Cheriece Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024