Cited by

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

650 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, -600 (Minn. 2013); -34 (Minn. 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because of the heightened scrutiny, this court examines “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Billy Ray Garrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is for ‘the benefit of the accused,’ permitting the public to see that the defendant is ‘fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned.’” (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 2215 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
at 660-61 (quoting Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39, 42 (2d Cir.1996)); -01 (Minn.2013) (applying Lindsey’s “triviality” standard and holding that the locking of courtroom doors during the State’s closing argument was not a closure).
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hamzeh Daghighian Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In State v. Silvernail, our supreme court acknowledged as much, explaining that it presents a “broader question of the applicable standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when the [s]tate presents both direct and circumstantial evidence to obtain a conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 First, we identify the circumstances proved, assuming that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We apply a two-step analysis when reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: (1) we 7 identify the circumstances proved; and (2) we then “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-06 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring) (elucidating proper standard to apply when state proves disputed element of a criminal offense by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review “circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Martin Hippler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.1 (Minn. 2012) (“Direct evidence is that which proves a fact without an inference or presumption and which in itself, if true, establishes that fact.” (Quotation omitted)); (Stras, J., concurring in part) (defining circumstantial evidence as “evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation [and that b]y definition, the fact-finder must make an inference from .
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Ann Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 617–18; d 594, 601 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quincy J. Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015