Cited by

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

653 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Craig Eugene Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Mut Biel Gach Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Louis Maynard Krueger, II Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Peter Roy Byrnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Odell NMN Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Sonny Syhavong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Mosenden Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jabar Pedro Morarend Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This is done “because the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence even in cases based on circumstantial evidence.” State v. Silvernail , .
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Dwane Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travares Ladell Cyrus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jon Dorien Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Silvernail , State v. Lindsey , -61 (Minn. 2001).
Elwin Louis Klimek v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In identifying the circumstances proved, this court defers to the fact -finder’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.” State v. Silvernail , , 598 -99 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Todd Curtis Myers Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy William Hinds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The circ umstances proved are “those ci rcumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Silvernail , , 598-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
to support the use of the heightened standard of review for a conviction based on both circumstantial and direct evidence.
State of Minnesota v. DeAndray Artez Easley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Larry Roy Kiefat, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Amit Kumar Mishra Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Guevara, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In this case, we need not resolve the dispute because, even under the heightened circumstantial-evidence standard of review, there is sufficient evidence to support Guevara’s
State of Minnesota, vs Clayton Robert Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Levon Elias Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Beverly Nicole Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Montreial Lavell Monroe Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Duane Rossetti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted )
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Silvernail , 8-99 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Frank Logan, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer ‘to the [factfinder]’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’” -99 (Minn. 2013) ().
State of Minnesota v. Twin Cities Care Services Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ubmitted to DHS in accordance with” applicable rules and statutes; (2) the QPs did not record the actual time they spent per client visit, and no one at TCCS regularly asked or recorded how long each QP visit lasted; (3) on no 2 In its briefing, -99 (Minn. 2013), applies, nor does it make any argument as to why the convictions fail under that standard.
State of Minnesota v. Jake Richard Mattern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under the circumstantial -evidence test, we “assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” State v. Silvernail , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Silvernail , d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Silvernail , , 599 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Michael Beach Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–04 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Lamont Gatlin Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald John Impola Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, (addressing “whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Silvernail, rather than an unidentified alternative perpetrator, ca used [the victim’s] death”); Staunton v. State , -02 (Minn. 2010) (concerning “claims that counsel failed to investigate .
Randy Eugene Stevens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a conviction depends on circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court applies a two-step analysis that first identifies the circumstances that are proved and then determines whether the circumstances proved “are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted); see State v. Robertson