Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCormick, 835 N.W.2d 498.

82 citing documents.

State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
Finally, the State argues that our standard of review creates confusion for appellate courts, noting that the court of appeals has said it can sometimes be difficult to identify the “circumstances proved,” , 505-06 n.2 (Minn. App. 2013), and has suggested that juries are in the best position to determine which inferences are reasonable, WL 5976070 , at *5 (Minn. App. Nov.
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. McCormick , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. McCormick , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review de novo a motion for judgment of acquittal because it is “procedurally equivalent to a motion for a directed verdict.” (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Tristan Leroy Trice Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tristan Leroy Trice Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Esteban J. Ramos, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Esteban J. Ramos, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that it is not this court’s 3 role to abolish established law), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Cork Ryden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; see also State v. 5 McCormick, n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting that, when reviewing the circumstances proved from a jury verdict of guilty, we evaluate what circumstances the jury likely determined were proved and its likely determinations).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or 4 not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” d 498, 509 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer to the jury’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.” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted); n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting that we evaluate the jury’s likely determinations from their guilty verdict when reviewing the circumstances proved) review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Kaupang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 598-9 (d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010)); n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting that when reviewing the circumstances proved from a jury verdict of 6 guilty, we evaluate what circumstances the jury likely determined were proved and their likely determinations).
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-06 n.2 (Minn. App. 2013).