Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Loving v. State, 891 N.W.2d 638.

268 citing documents.

Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
See, (concluding prior threat to kill victims was evidence of premeditation); d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (noting that Minn. Stat. § 609.18 defines premeditation as “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission”).
State of Minnesota v. Angie Lynn Schimming Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Alexander Gogoi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Kayvon Julian Madison Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts are to reverse “[i]f a reasonable inference other than guilt exists.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdirahman Mohamed Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“If a reasonable inference other than guilt exists, then we will reverse the conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Cortez Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Chue Pao Her Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lowell Victor Abelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. Y. Q., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Next, we determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Loving v. State , d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Stephen Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Remer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Dean Marty Oelkers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Morris Robert Chie Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Morris Robert Chie Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Next, we determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jamison Franklin Wells Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 638, 646 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jamaal Terrance Tanna Minn. Ct. App. 2025
called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Allen Saarela Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Nathaniel Arnold, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. C. P., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. C. P., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kelci Marie Meyers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kelci Marie Meyers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
First, appellate courts identify the circumstances proved by the state, giving deference to the fact-finder’s “acceptance of the [s]tate’s evidence and its rejection of any evidence in the record that is inconsistent with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.”
State of Minnesota v. Pharoah Gerald Ashley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”
State of Minnesota v. Alan Orv Weaver Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Francis Gregory Halling Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Win Naing Aung Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Chad David Doris Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Under the heightened two- step test, we consider whether the circumstances proved by the state are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent 13 with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mylene Vialard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Harlan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kueth Pamier Ruae Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. James Demetrius Redd Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. James William Schnitter Minn. Ct. App. 2025
S tate of Minnesota v. Joseph Harrison Baynes Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Under the heightened two-step test, we consider the circumstances proved by the state and whether they are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Calvin Cooliage Reavers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Andre Scott, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Teresa Marie Massey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Joseph Mash Babineaux Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Edward Walker McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Next, the appellate court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Loving v. State , d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Me’Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Farah Muhumed Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Farah Muhumed Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Next, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Me’Darian Ledale McGruder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“If a reasonable inference other than guilt exists, then we will reverse the conviction.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).