Cited by

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

650 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(Stras, J., concurring in part) (reasoning that “there is no reason to evaluate the reasonableness of inferences that the jury is never required to make” and concluding that “the ‘circumstantial evidence standard’ does not apply to our review of an element of a criminal offense that the State has
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paris Treall Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[I]n determining the circumstances proved, we consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. S. G. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is ‘[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.’” (Stras, J., concurring in part) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In other words, “direct evidence, if believed, directly proves the existence of fact without requiring any inferences by the fact-finder.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” while circumstantial evidence is “based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” (Stras, J., concurring) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved by the state must be “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational 9 hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]n determining the circumstances proved, we consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Scott Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William Harold Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The second step is to determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marsenior Pede Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved,” and “[t]he second step is to 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. Michael William Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-05 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring in part) (explaining that in a case where the state introduced both direct and 1 To convict appellant of count one, the jury had to find that (1) appellant drove, operated, or physically controlled a motor vehicle, (2) his alcohol concentration was .08 or more within two
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(Stras, J., concurring in part) ( (holding that in order for a fact to be proven by circumstantial evidence, we consider whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See, (closure during state’s closing argument); Brown, d at 618 (closure during jury instructions); Bobo, d at 139 (discussing closure during a witness’s second testimony); Mahkuk, d at 683-85 (removal of gang members from courtroom during lay-witness testimony); Lindsey, 632 N.W
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McCormick 835 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(Stras, J., concurring).
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
*310 -06 (Minn.2013) (Stras, J., concurring).
State v. Hayes 831 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by