Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297.

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
review of the record,” (), and review the evidence “to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) ().
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
Spark-of-life evidence consists of biographical .testimony about the victim, including “a photograph of the victim before the injury occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, we review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be 3 drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, [appellate courts] review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” –07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Davis Holloman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Davis Holloman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” – 07 (Minn. 2014) (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] review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” –07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Under the traditional standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 8 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Achuil Deng Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Achuil Deng Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” –07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If a conviction, or a single element of a criminal offense, is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence, viewed as a whole, must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
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. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A jury is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and its verdict is entitled to due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “we review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [factfinder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” –07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ce Under the traditional standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the 2 legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” –07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A [fact-finder] is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and its verdict is entitled to due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Jimale Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Jimale Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In considering a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, we must “determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).