Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III, 858 N.W.2d 156.

177 citing documents.

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
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 sufficient direct evidence of possession of firearm).
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Elias Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 (2012); (“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive possession.”).
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 sufficient direct evidence of possession of firearm).
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying direct-evidence standard of review in case involving constructive possession of items within the defendant’s exclusive control).
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
that either (1) “the prohibited item was found ‘in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access,’ or (2) if the prohibited item was found ‘in a place to which others had access, there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.’” (quoting State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, ).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We seek to “determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Permit No. 16868 (December 21, 2012) issued to … 867 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 156, 157-58 (Minn. 2015) (affirming defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm after a search resulted in law enforcement finding a shotgun in a locked gun safe in defendant’s bedroom); Florine, 303 Minn. at 103-04, d at 610 (affirming the conviction of a defendant of possession of controlled substances
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We seek to “determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015