Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gulbertson v. State, 843 N.W.2d 240.

101 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The appellate court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact finder believed the state’s 4 witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must “assume that the [jury] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “the jury is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation 3
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk 869 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 2015
“Jury instructions ‘must fairly and adequately explain the law5 [and] define the crime charged.” () ().
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jamah Griffis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jamah Griffis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, our inquiry is limited to whether the fact-finder could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” -45 (Minn. 2014).
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jiyaad Jamaal Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jury instructions “must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Jury instructions must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its “decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-45 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Hernandes Ayala Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We must assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Roy Horvath Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[F]ailure to object to jury instructions precludes review unless the appellant can show that there was a plain error affecting substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Hugh Alexander Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, our inquiry is limited to whether the fact- finder could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” –45 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Otto Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court has broad discretion in determining how to instruct a jury, and we will not reverse where jury instructions “‘overall fairly and correctly state the applicable law.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Keith Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellate courts reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence” and determine “whether the fact-finder could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” –45 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[Appellate courts] review a postconviction court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, but review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Gulbertson v. 2 State
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014