Cited by

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

680 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jose Ventura Hernandez Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Ann Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris, 4 -601 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017) .
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[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. Anansa Ashanti McIntosh-Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Bryce Monroe Muir Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Harris , (“As the fact finder, the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”).
State of Minnesota v. Lor Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Nairfe Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Luke Ryan Doud Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alan Thunder Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017) .
State of Minnesota v. Montreial Lavell Monroe Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Intent to sell a controlled substance is typically proved by circumstantial evidence, “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute exi sted or did not exist.” (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“In determining the circumstances proved, we disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
[and] disregard[ing] evidence that is inconsi stent with the jury’s verdict.” 600-01 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Muna Ibrahim Abikar Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Even under the stricter review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence, –01 (Minn. 2017), it is clear that the facts belie Abikar’s argument.
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jake Richard Mattern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nathan Thomas Tow-Arnett v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris , , 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Randy Eugene Stevens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Circumstantial evidence is evidence “from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Odall Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“To sustain a conviction b ased on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris , , 599 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Torrance Lovell Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Keely Hartley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Amy Jane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Ricky Lee Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
but that case is distinguishable.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 “A conviction based on circumstanti al evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted); -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard); (“[T]he heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence.
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Harris , , 598 (Minn. 2017) ("For approximately a century, we have applied a separate standard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence."); Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) ("Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is
State of Minnesota v. Mark Robert Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State 6 v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ralph Mock Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See State v. Harris , , 599 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming the validity of the circumstantial-evidence standard of review as "the same today as it was when we decided [it] in 1928" and declining to consider it "outdated").
State of Minnesota v. Travis Adam Westgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Lloyd Pogatchnik Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris , –01 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Noe Hugo Toscano Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (internal quotation omitted).