Cited by

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

268 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Second, we determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent 8 with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rolmando Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Rolmando Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When the direct evidence of guilt on a particular element is not alone sufficient to sustain the verdict,” appellate courts “apply a heightened two-step standard, which we have called the circumstantial-evidence 7 standard of review.” see also Silvernail, d at 598.
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Lee Busse Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Lee Busse Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Michael Romeo Geraci Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Jason Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Next, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Loving v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Woodrow West Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Chace Jeffrey Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Regina Marie White Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Second, 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. Anthony John Tavarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Next, we must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Paul Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Thomas Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Next, the appellate court determines “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Rock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Rosas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Lovestrand Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. E. M., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Salvador Niola Agudo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quotation omitted); see also U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Torrence Lavelle Johnson, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ayub Abucar Hagi Iman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Jacob Bonin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Darnell Jones, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Lance George Iwen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Park Hess Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dinanden Dewayne Doby Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Second, 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. Kissie Marie Haynes Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But when the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an element of an offense, we apply a heightened standard of review in which we independently examine, with no deference to the jury, “the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard James Graf Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leslee Ann Randberg Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Braulio Barrios Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leah Racquel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Duane Warner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We apply this traditional standard of review “whenever the direct evidence establishing a particular element of a crime is alone sufficient to support the jury verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Brett Thomas Green Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Marcelo Mendez Zepeta Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin David Scruggs Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Derrick George Rocha Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jacob David Jackson Boucher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Morris Silas Dodd, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2016); see also Loving v. State , (finding no direct evidence of defendant ’s state of mind through his statements and applying the circumstantial-evidence standard).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Kershawn Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Second, 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. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Next, the appellate court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational 12 hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sara Jane Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Next, the appellate court determines “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Israel Frederick Elder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Aery Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Second, 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. Dontae Deshaun White Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Next, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypot hesis other than guilt.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 Second, 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. Emilio Nieto Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Frank Garrett Quentin Walter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jantile Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We apply this traditional standard of review “whenever the direct evidence establishing a particular element of a crime is alone sufficient to support the jury verdict.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by