Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24.

431 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial-evidence standard, that governs.”
State of Minnesota v. Adam Blaine Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Michael McKinley 891 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Michael McKinley 891 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 ANALYSIS “The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution guarantee the right to a trial by an impartial jury in all criminal prosecutions.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Blaine Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
it is the traditional standard [for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence], rather than the circumstantial-evidence standard, that governs.” d 24, 39-40 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond 890 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond 890 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Irene Bernice Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Even if the defendant shows a plain error that impacted her substantial rights, that error is grounds for reversal only if “required to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.”
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the testimony of a person who perceived a fact through her senses or physical evidence of the fact itself is direct evidence); (observing that state proved each of disputed elements through witness testimony, which is direct evidence when it reflects witnesses’ personal observations and allows jury to find defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial- evidence standard, that governs.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Horst’s statement to multiple witnesses, ‘I want him dead,’ was direct evidence of her mens rea.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
-68 (Minn.2013); -95 (Minn.2006)
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding appellant’s statement that she wanted victim dead was direct evidence of mens rea); n.4 (Minn. 2007) (holding direct evidence proves a fact without any inference or presumption).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding Horst’s statements, “I want him dead,” “we can do this,” and asking “how many rounds did you put in him,” constituted direct evidence that she knew accomplice would kill victim).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(recognizing an elements-based approach to applying circumstantial-evidence review).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company 862 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2015