Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83.

183 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This court reviews jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether th ey fairly and adequately explain the law.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew James Preston, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
First, we “identify the circumstances proved.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason James Loveless, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Antwan Christopher Jones, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
See State v. Moore , (noting that the circumstances proved supported the inference that the defendant retrieved the knife from the kitchen, which was roughly 10 feet away); (explaining that planning activity includes retrieving a weapon or ammunition); State
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 of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 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. 2019
We also note that even under the heightened standard of review, we “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-92 (Minn. 2014) (allowing the admission of evidence regarding defendant’s history of abusing former spouse).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
State v. Vasquez 912 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
See State v. Moore , , 89 (Minn. 2014) ("The anger sparked by the deterioration of the couple's relationship and [the defendant]'s jealousy provided a motive to kill, which supports the Jury's premeditation determination.").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Majinieke Vasha Thompson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017