Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Hayes , (reviewing de novo whether a ppellant’s “conduct in this case meets the definition of a drive-by shoo ting”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 799, 804 (Minn. 2013).
In the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. Minn. 2020
“If a statute does not define a word or phrase, we give that word or phrase its ‘plain and ordinary meaning.’ ” (quoting State v. Hayes , –04 (Minn. 2013)).
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
(resolving an ambiguity in the drive-by-shooting statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(declining to “consider the remaining prongs of the plain-error test” after concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
State v. Defatte 928 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 2019
" State v. Prigge , , 638 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Hayes , , 803-04 (Minn. 2013) ).
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Pakhnyuk 926 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 2019
State v. Hayes , , 805 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lagred 923 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Hayes , , 804 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
" State v. Prigge , , 638 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State v. Hayes , , 803-04 (Minn. 2013) ); see also Larson , d at 703 ("Statutory words and phrases must be construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage."
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Kimberly Brinkman, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 799, 804 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hayes , , 804 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The offense of 11 drive-by shooting is “defined in its entirety in subdivisi on 1e(a), and subdivision 1e(b) provides for a sentence enhancement when a person, while committing a drive-by shooting, discharges a firearm at or toward an occupied building, an occupied motor vehicle, or a person.”
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hayes , , 803 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hayes , , 803 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To evaluate a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ficiency of the Evidence When reviewing whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict, Minnesota appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and rea sonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted); (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating th
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hayes , , 808 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
If a statute does not define a word or phrase, we give that word or phrase its “plain and ordinary meaning.” –04 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. W. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, d 799, 808 (Minn. 2013) (noting the focus of the state’s case and the evidence when viewed in context); -45 (Minn. 2012) (noting the probative value of evidence introduced to anticipate challenges to witness credibility); (noting the pr
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
-05 (Minn. 2013) (resolving an ambiguity by determining which interpretation of an ambiguous statute is “better”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 799, 803 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC 894 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 2017
“If a statute is unambiguous, then we must apply the statute’s plain meaning.” ().
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017