Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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. Jerome Allen Mindermann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To convict Mindermann of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the state was required “to prove in re levant part that he knowingly possessed the firearm.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Circumstantial evid ence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quota tion omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dzenan Jay Kamencic Minn. Ct. App. 2021
First, we identify the circumstances proved, “disregard [ing] evidence that is inconsistent with 1 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. Mayson Kellon Lueck Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Circumstantial evidence is “ev idence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existe d or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kristiana Elena Beavers Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[D]irect evidence is [e]vidence 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. Donald Franklin Derricotte, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [jury] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitte d).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Farookh Mohamed Abdulazeez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Maung Soe Myint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinde r can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Czarnecki Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Cortez Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Russel Allen Doucette Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- 03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wendlin Linderman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence 5 from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist .” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Eugene Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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. Richard Joseph Hamer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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. Halana Debra Louise Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Harris , (noting that d irect 8 v. Porte
State of Minnesota v. Larry Cregg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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. Richard Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, i f true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Leticia Rene Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Ahmed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Okuch Odiel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Boisjolie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Percy Leonard French Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Scott Howard Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct eviden ce is “evidence that is ba sed on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a f act without inference or presumption.” (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Boyd Jerome Morson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 To convict Morson, the state was required to prove that he constructively possessed the gun found in his vehicle by “knowingly exercising dominion and control over it.” See State v. Harris , .1 Morson argues defense counsel conceded that Morson knew the gun was in his vehicle, and thereby conceded constructive possession, in the following segment of closing argument: And then, finally, the State has suggested that somehow that because Mr. Morson didn’ t use the word gun that he was
State of Minnesota v. Deavion Ladell Beasley, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Korolchuk Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Angelica Shantel Easterling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Khammany Choulamontry Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Harris , (defining direct evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Breslan Rowan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chinomso Emmanuel Onuoha Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Lind Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Shunzhong Li Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Suvwe Peter Ighovojah Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Lynne Dahlgren Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The state may prove possession “through evidence of actual or constructive possession.” (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Eithan Armani Green Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Circumstantial evidence, in contrast, is “evidence from which the factfinde r can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tiron Patrick Beane Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on person al knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotation and alteration omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Jeremy Lee Krier Minn. Ct. App. 2020
At this stage, we defer “to the jury’s accepta nce of the [s]tate’s evidence and its rejection 2 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
(“ In determining the circumstances proved, we disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dirk Udo McHugh Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct t estimonial evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Myron Remund Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in support existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).