Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592.
- State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Ali Ahmed Omar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Ryan Timothy Kellen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Timothy Kellen
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Ali Ahmed Omar
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist” and “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. David Darnell Jones, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Respondent Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. David Darnell Jones, Jr., Appellant/Cross-Respondent
Minn. 2024
Direct evidence is “ ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’ ” (alteration in original) ( n.4 (Minn. 3 When viewed in a light most factorable to the verdict, the record also supports the conclusion that the night before the assault, Jones told K.S.
- State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”
- State of Minnesota v. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Circumstantial evidence “requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Dale Edward Lehman, Jr. Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Dale Edward Lehman, Jr.
Minn. 2024
This 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.’ ” (citation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Marice Darnell King
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
7 (noting that 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. Gerhard Arthur Ziemann
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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. Reginald Scott Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Steven Craig Morrow Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Scott Hubbard
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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. Steven Craig Morrow
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (citations and quotations omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Anthony Bradley
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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. Juan Antonio Ruiz
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that 3 At trial, the detective testified that he found a handgun in the back of the Jeep that contained ammunition, but the jury found the state failed to prove Ruiz possessed the firearm.
-
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Doll
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court defines circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Gregory Paul Ulrich Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Paul Ulrich
Minn. 2024
First, we identify the circumstances proved by “winnow[ing] ‘down the evidence presented at trial’ to a ‘subset of facts’ that is consistent with the jury’s verdict and ‘disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.’ ” Gilleylen, d at 275 (–01 (Minn. 2017)).
- State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Ronald Eugene Brusacoram Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Ronald Eugene Brusacoram Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Antonio Barrera Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. David Alan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“To sustain the conviction, the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, must be consistent with a reasonable inference that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”).
-
State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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 Alan Williams
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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. Bonita Hoglund
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[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. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Toni Elizabeth Ickler Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Toni Elizabeth Ickler
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Jeremy James Heller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. John Michael Ryan
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In doing so, we independently examine “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.”
- State of Minnesota v. Ali Dayib Warsame Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Ali Dayib Warsame Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Joel Armen Underwood, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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. Eric Humberto Sanchez
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[D]irect 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 and alteration omitted).