Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Juarez, 837 N.W.2d 473.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But “i nconsistencies in testimony go to witness credibility, which is an issue for the factfinder, not this court.” d 473, 487 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Steven Jonas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
484-85 (Minn. 2013) 19 (determining that dragging a victim over 200 feet from a bar to an alley to attempt to sexually assault her was not “completely incidental to his criminal sexual conduct” because the defendant’s acts constituted “culpable conduct separate and distinct from [the] criminal sexual condu
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Mary Kate Nguyen v. Drew Evans, Superintendent, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In State v. Juarez, the supreme court concluded that the defendant’s act of dragging a victim 209 feet from an area outside of a bar where she had been with friends to an alley where he attempted to sexually assault her was not “completely incidental to his criminal sexual conduct.” 484-85 (Minn. 2013).
Jose Santoya Juarez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
WL 5476119, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L. M. H. and T. D. M., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But “inconsistencies in testimony go to witness credibility, which is an issue for the factfinder, not [an appellate] court.” State v. Juarez
Minn. 2020
“Constitutional interpretation is a legal question that we review de novo.” State v. Juarez , d 473, 479 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Ali 895 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that witness credibility is an issue for the district court, not the appellate court).
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeannie Frances Ball Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Inconsistencies 4 in prosecution evidence do not require reversal.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[Appellate courts] will defer, subject to constitutional limits, to the Legislature’s judgment that certain conventional approaches to punishment are not adequate to protect the public safety, and that different approaches to punishment must be considered.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Spidel Wayne Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]nconsistencies in testimony go to witness credibility, which is an issue for the factfinder, not [an appellate] court.”
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
– 85 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that removal of victim from outside of bar to nearby narrow alley was not “completely incidental” to criminal sexual conduct, although “removal was committed at approximately the same time as [defendant]’s criminal sexual conduct and was intended to facilitate that conduct,” since
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
To determine whether a particular sentence is cruel or unusual under the Minnesota Constitution, we “separately examine whether the sentence is cruel and whether it is unusual.”