Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257.

400 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kenwan Deshawn Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kenwan Deshawn Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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 [the defendant] was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Ali Ahmed Omar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ali Ahmed Omar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
5 “When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] 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. Marice Darnell King Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Craig Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Esais Joseph Menasi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Steven Craig Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we “examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Esais Joseph Menasi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Anthony Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Robert Wilford Fields, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jonquil Bernard Neal Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Juan Antonio Ruiz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 “When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Curtis Allen Doll Minn. Ct. App. 2024
6 “When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Antonio Barrera Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The reviewing court assumes that “the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, .
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Zane David Foley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will not disturb a verdict “if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an 3 offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts ‘carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Justin Louis Hudak Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffin Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Louis Hudak Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Hudak’s sufficiency of the evidence argument requires us to “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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 and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffin Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “[we] carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Derrick Lee Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Donald Dequai Crenshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This court must “determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Eric Humberto Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When appellate courts eva luate the sufficiency of the evidence, they “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of t he offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Martinez-Mondragon Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Erick Martinez-Mondragon Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Korwin Lucio Balsley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Lee Cocuzzi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Korwin Lucio Balsley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
sidering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “appellate courts carefully examine the record to 5 determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact finder] 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. Allen Marquise Burson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We will not disturb a verdict “if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. KaFuba FoFana Minn. Ct. App. 2023
404(b)] is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” , 261 (Minn. 2016).