Cited by

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

273 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson 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
We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with [the] verdict.” (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. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with [the] verdict.” (quotation omitted).
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. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tondalia Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tondalia Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “[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. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Premeditation requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act,” but proving premeditation does not require “proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill” or “any specific period of time for deliberation.” (quotation omitted); see also Raleigh, d at 94 (“To prove premeditation, the facts must establish that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consider
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In undertaking this analysis, we “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that [conviction].”
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[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. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett 867 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Burnett 867 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. N. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. N. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(providing the test for circumstantial evidence, like intent).
State of Minnesota v. Ruben Alonso Avendano Contreras Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ruben Alonso Avendano Contreras 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
We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with the verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When presented with the question of whether circumstantial evidence supports a guilty verdict, the reviewing court first identifies “the circumstances proved, giving deference to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved.” 5 (quotations omitted).
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with the verdict,” and “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,” Ortega, d at 100.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 While a bench trial was held in this case, this court “use[s] the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[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. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Achuil Deng Minn. Ct. App. 2015