Cited by

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

441 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeremy James McNitt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In a criminal case, the remedy for an illegal search or seizure is generally limited to the suppression of illegally obtained evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To satisfy this prong of the plain-error test, Freeman must show that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdi ct.” See State v. Horst , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fernell Damon Nickson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Landis Sherel Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2017
she was capable of forming the requisite criminal intent to support a conviction for second-degree assault.” When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, this court thoroughly reviews the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ( 5 (Minn. 1989)).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Ryan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“With respect to the substantial-rights requirement, [the defendant] bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Scotty Nicolas Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Wardell Andrewin 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. 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 Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial- evidence standard, that governs.”
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