Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cordero Jarrod Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ramsey County Thissen, J. Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Yernatich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013); see also State v. Harris , (defining circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the fact [-]finder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist”) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Dean Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo nmn Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the fa ctfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Darcel Louis Magee Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Steven Marczak Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 v. John Ray Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In contrast, direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amil Abdi Yonis Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Harris , (explaining that d irect evidence is “based on personal knowledge or observation” and “if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”).
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Braswell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-01 (Minn. 2017) (quotation and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Jo Huntington Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence fro m which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Frank Rezac Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In identifying the circumstances proved, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Lee Bartel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Craig Eugene Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Rick Alan Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” State v. Harris , (second alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Louis Maynard Krueger, II Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Dumont White Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Alexander James Menne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. William Daniel Finley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
C ircumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in di spute existed or did not exist,” and direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Leigh Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Direct evidence is evidence that is “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota (A18-1999) (A18-1957,) v. Torrance Lee Royster (A18-1957) (A18-1999) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in disput e existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Bazoff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jazmyne Amanda-May Shinabarger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Direct evidence is evidence that is “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To preserve the jury’s credibility determinations, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict.” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the fact-finder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Dwane Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kristin Ann Altepeter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Direct evidence is evidence that is “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Lipe Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travares Ladell Cyrus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Semaj Maurice Dow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Robert Tichich Minn. Ct. App. 2019
circumstantial evidence, we apply a two-step analysis to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence, first identifying the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’ s verdict” in deference to the jury’ s credibility determinations, and then independently considering the “reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.” -601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Ochan Yien Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the circumstantial - evidence test, appellate courts “identify the circumstances proved and independently consider the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those circumstances, when viewed as a whole.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Tad Isaac Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Additionally, “[a] defendant may possess an item jointly with another person.” State v. Harris , .
State of Minnesota v. Xieng Khan Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Steven Ray Odenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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. Felix Antonio Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , –601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When the challenged conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,” then independently consider the “reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.” State v. Harris , -01 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine James McMahon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).