Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Adrian Thomas Howell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 592, 601 -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Harris , , 601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Lee Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , (Minn. 3 The state also notes that there is direct evidence that supports the conviction, such as Curfman’s testimony that he saw Kowalzyk’s “glossy eyes,” smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from Kowalzyk, and Kowalzyk’s admission that he had a couple of drinks
State of Minnesota v. Larhonda Betty Spiller 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. Delorien Robert Daniel Chatman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rather, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the [fact-finder’s] verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Meng Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“As the fact finder, th e jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Ward Hohlen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Mariel Alexandra Grimm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Gellis Lee Walton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Direct evidence is defined as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or ob servation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lannon Lavar Burdunice Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Randal Edward Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We affirm only if the reasonable inferences from the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and “inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy William Hinds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lee Edward Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Second, we independently consider whether a reasonable inference of non-guilt can be drawn from the 1 The supreme court has defined ci rcumstantial evidence as “evid ence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or di d not exist.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kaylen Demond Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
600-01 (Minn. 2017) (reaffi rming the circumstantial-eviden ce standard).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamar Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Abdiqadar Salah Kasim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. James Antuan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. German 929 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , , 600 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The state asserts that the heightened standard of review does not apply in this case because appellant’s possession of the methamphetamine was proven by a combination of direct and circ umstantial 7 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. Murtada Ahmed Abdelrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell 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. Paul Raymond Lund, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Justin Darrell Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the jury is in the best position to determine witness credibility and may accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 592, 601 -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence stand ard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Desean Demetrius Crayton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Mohamud Hussein Ahmed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Byron Stark 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. David Garrett Tynes 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. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-06 (Minn. 2017) (providing that when the evidence at issue is direct evidence, the heightened standard of review does not apply); (“Testimony provided by a witness, concerning what the witness saw or heard , is considered direct evidence.”).
Troy William Drusch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, as it is here, stricter scrutiny is given to this court’s review of a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Daylyn Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dementry James Loyd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Beckstrand Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Victor Prude Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travers Davel McDaniel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, we note that the state was required to prove that the defendant “knowingly possessed a firearm ” or “consciously or knowingly exercised dominion and control over it.”
Wilbert Arnold Sandstrom v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Harris , (stating that direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation).
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 592, 598 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Eugene Berg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Harris , , 598-601 (Minn. 2017).