Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam, 859 N.W.2d 825.

116 citing documents.

State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Salyers , , 160 (Minn. 2015) (establishing constructive possession by direct evidence); State v. Sam , , 832 (Minn. App. 2015) (establishing constructive possession by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Guevara, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Duane Rossetti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review the sufficiency of the state’s circumstantial evidence de novo.”
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review the sufficiency of the state’s circumstantial evidence de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Alec Martii Soderbloom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-75 (Minn. 2005) (stating that the test for a motion for judgment of acquittal is “whether the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the [fact-finder’s] determination”); (noting this court applies the same standard to challenges based on judgment of acquittal and based on sufficiency of the evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Barrios-German Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 “A conviction based on circumstanti al evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted); -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard); (“[T]he heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumsta
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Lloyd Pogatchnik Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Consequently, the state must prove that Pogatchnik “exercised dominion and control over the contraband.” .
State of Minnesota v. Jeriod David Knerr Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
First, we “determine the circumstances proved, giving due deference to the fact-finder and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (citing Silvernail, d at 599).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Maurice Goode Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Alan Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(noting that , where appellant did not have exclusive possession of the vehicle, the presence of contraband alone was not sufficient to establish appellant possessed it).
State of Minnesota v. Devante Lemuel Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted); see State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard).
State of Minnesota v. Martize Devone Roland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]hen a district court considers a motion for judgment of acquittal, it must apply the same standard appellate courts use to review challenges to sufficiency of the evidence.” 4
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Spencer Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Casey emphasizes that the state had to prove he was “consciously exercising dominion and control of the methamphetamine at the time of his arrest.” where we reversed Sam’s conviction for 8 possessing methamphetamine with a firearm enhancement after we deemed the circumstantial evidence insufficient to support his conviction.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Derrean Darnell Hogan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., Silvernail, d at 600 (finding no rational inference inconsistent with guilt); (finding that a rational inference inconsistent with guilt existed).
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rhiannon Marie Zych Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
warrants heightened scrutiny.’” (quoting Smith, d at 770).
State of Minnesota v. Henry Davila Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry Davila Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances proved be consistent with an appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other rational or reasonable hypothesis.” d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Lee Davis 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. 2015) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state did not introduce direct evidence).