Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592.

680 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Tremaine Michael Bucholz Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Hudson, … Minn. 2026
n.3 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Naftalin, d at 267, for the proposition that stare decisis “is not inapplicable in any field [of law]”).
State of Minnesota v. Kacey Emmanuel Kamara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Lex Phaengdara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daryl Shannon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017)).
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Buenfil Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Derrick John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Eugene Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Circumstantial evidence, in contrast, is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alexander Albert Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Angie Lynn Schimming Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Deonte Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Charles Graves Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This is direct evidence because it is “based on personal knowledge or observation,” and, if true, proves the distance at issue “without inference or 8 presumption.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Andrew Huyber Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Troy James Bonkowske Minn. Ct. App. 2026
While direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute exist ed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cristian Joel Mungia Figueroa Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Alexander Gogoi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sylvester Antione Townsend Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Andreas Jeffrey Joyner Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying heightened standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence); d 468, 478 (Minn. 2026) (reiterating our long -standing circumstantial -evidence test).
State of Minnesota v. Kayvon Julian Madison Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirizak Bashir Barre Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Keira Ann Marie Conkling Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Cortez Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”
State of Minnesota v. Deionte Jaewon Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[ D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. J. T., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alan Penhollow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Jason Bibbs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lebert Clair McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kenneth Icanberry Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Chue Pao Her Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State 6 v. Harris, (contrasting direct and circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Hope Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).
Abdulwahid Hassan Hedo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Charquandra Charnetta Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In contrast, circumstantial evidence is “ evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fredy Saavedra Olivar Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In doing so, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the [fact-finder ’s] verdict,” which results in “a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The first step requires us to ‘winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,’ which results in ‘a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.’” Firkus, d at 478 (d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017)).
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Hussein Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Gunnar Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Brett Rodney Sanko Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Christopher Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Barry Alan Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2026
4 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lowell Victor Abelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The first step requires us to ‘winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,’ which results in ‘a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.’” Firkus, d at 478 ().
State of Minnesota v. Finest Andre Nickens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” .
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Morocho Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Adam David Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 479 (acknowledging that “our precedent does not permit [an appellate court] to re-weigh the evidence and sit, in essence, as a 13th juror” (quotation omitted); (“As the fact finder, the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”) ).
State of Minnesota v. Nyapuot Dech Kuek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Sharon Ann Schmalzriedt Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Omar Combs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. Y. Q., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
25, 2026) (stating that we apply a circumstantial -evidence standard if the state relies solely on circumstantial evidence to prove the elements of premeditation or intent to kill); State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of crimi nal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Jaimee Nichole Traylor Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Christopher Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2026
if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” 11 (quotation omitted).