Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594.

650 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alphonse Reff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alphonse Reff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Charles Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Charles Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, -600 (Minn. 2013); -34 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“We need not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the standard of review because, even under the more favorable standard proposed by Silvernail, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.”).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Givins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Givins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Barenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
721 , 175 L.Ed.2d 675 (2010); witness testimony, Bobo, d at 139 ; -85 (Minn. 2007); closing arguments, jury instructions, Brown, d at 616-18; and returning of the verdict.
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cheng Pao Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(Stras, J., concurring) (noting that defendant’s confession amounted to direct evidence of guilt).
State of Minnesota v. Sabrina Beth O'Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Landon Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Landon Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sabrina Beth O'Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we use a two-step process to assess the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.9
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–10 (Minn. App. 2013) (–06 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring)).
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, -600 (Minn. 2013); -34 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first step of the circumstantial-evidence test is “to identify the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-05 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring) (explaining that when both direct and circumstantial evidence are presented on an element of a criminal offense, our caselaw does not require the use of either standard of review).