Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303.

238 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gary Christopher Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and assum ing that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and 9 disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,” State v. Porte , (quotation omitted), we conclude that sufficient evidence supports appellant’s conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Patrick Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A convictio n based on circumstantial evidence receives heightened scrutiny on appellate review.” State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Lee Krier Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence ar e subject to “heightened scrutiny.” State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Krabbenhoft Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Myron Remund Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Because intent to sell is typically proven by circumstantial evidence, we apply the circumstantial-evidence standard.
State of Minnesota v. Massoud Amin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Yernatich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo nmn Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Eldon Switala Minn. Ct. App. 2020
First, “[p]roximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.” See State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Jo Huntington Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Lee Bartel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Mut Biel Gach Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Michael Thomas Palke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc. , n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Alexander James Menne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Sandra Kay Kouba Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bruce Andrew Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3(c) (2018); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc. , n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “conducts a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach a verdict of guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travares Ladell Cyrus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing that intent to sell or distribute controlled substances typically is proved with circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
is is a circumstantial case,” but argues that the evidence is sufficient for Kowalzyk’s conviction.3 When appellate courts review a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larhonda Betty Spiller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004).
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Porte , , 308 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Becker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Garrett Tynes Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004).
Steven James Hayes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The third prong—whether substa ntial rights were 2 “It is a well-established rule that any claims not argued by the parties are deemed waived unless prejudicial errors are obvious from the record.” n.2 (Minn. 2009); -14 (Minn. App. 2013) (declining to decide whether a trial error was harmless because the state failed to raise the issue).
Joseph Bergeron v. Commissioner of Corrections, Tom Roy, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3(c) (2018); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Blanchard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Horst , Bernhardt v. State
In re the Matter of: Matthew Lawson Thornton v. Jessica Ortiz Bosquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3(c) (201 8); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc. , n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
At the second st age of review, we “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Montreial Lavell Monroe Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Intent to sell a controlled substance is typically proved by circumstantial evidence, “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute exi sted or did not exist.” (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
*765 State v. Porte , , 309 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We apply a two-step analysis requiring us to first identify the circumstances proved and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from th e circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip D. Mallett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Al–Naseer, d at 473–75).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In reviewing the sufficiency of circum stantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Usually, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lamar Terrelle Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances.” State v. Porte