Cited by

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

650 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).
Sonny Syhavong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Silvernail , State v. Lindsey , -61 (Minn. 2001).
Elwin Louis Klimek, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted )
Anthony Strickland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Silvernail , 8-99 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Silvernail , d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–04 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” Sam, d at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018