Cited by

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

237 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Lee Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–09 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting appellant’s assertion that it is more likely that controlled substance belonged to alternative perpetrators, characterizing assertion as “essentially ask[ing] this court to reweigh the evidence,” and declining to do so).
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Lee Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence); see also Salyers, d at 160-61 (applying ordinary standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence); -33 (Minn. App.
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- 13 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that the state’s failure to assert a harmless-error analysis in its respondent’s brief was waiver).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Fernando Escobar-Chilel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Fernando Escobar-Chilel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state 6 introduced insufficient direct evidence); see also Salyers, d at 160-61 (applying ordinary standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence)
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession” and “an item that is constructively possessed may be possessed by more than one person.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–10 (Minn. App. 2013) (–06 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring)).
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(applying traditional standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence of possession of firearm).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When considering a claim of insufficient 11 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 jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–75 (Minn. 6 2010); (“Generally, if the state’s evidence on an element of an offense .
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence of possession of requisite amount of controlled substance); (applying traditional standard of review because state introduced suf
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ) (stating that the Florine analysis is fact driven and that “ease of access is certainly one factor relevant to establishing constructive possession”); d 303, 308 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that “[p]roximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession” and that “an item that is constructively possessed may be possessed by more than one person” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence of possession of requisite amount of controlled substance); (applying traditional standard of review because state introduced
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Heightened scrutiny is a two-step process requiring the reviewing court to first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” 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); see also Al-Naseer, d at 473-74.
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
cceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then (2) “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” - 4 74, 477 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted); (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Intent to sell controlled substances “typically is proved with circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3(c) (2012); Vlahos v. R & I Constr., Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Silvernail, d at 605 (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 proven by direct evidence”); (stating that “[w]hether we apply the standard of review applicable to circumstantial evidence depends on whether the conviction necessarily depends
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence of possession of requisite amount of controlled substance); see also Salyers, d at 161 (applying traditional standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct eviden
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cole Lyle Kjellberg Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ricky Alan Geving v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015