Cited by

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

265 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When the direct evidence of guilt on a particular element is not alone sufficient to sustain the verdict, however, [appellate courts] apply a heightened two -step standard, which [the supreme court has] called the circumstantial -evidence standard of review.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In this second step, no deference is given to the jury’s verdict, Loving v. State , although we will not overturn a 12 verdict based on mere conjecture or speculation
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7 (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
Sonny Syhavong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
At this stage, we defer to “the jury’s acceptance of the [s]tate’s evidence and its rejection of any evidence in the record that is inconsistent with the circumsta nces proved by the [s]tate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When the direct evidence of guilt on a particular element is not alone sufficient to sustain the verdict, appellate courts apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.1
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Criminal defendants have “a constitutional right to a meaningf ul opportunity to present a complete defense.” Loving v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A. Direct Evidence When considering whether there is sufficient evidence to support an element proved by direct evidence, Minnesota 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).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
*361 Loving v. State , , 643 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Anthony Strickland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony James Olgeirson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When considering a claim of insufficien t evidence, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Loving v. State , , 643 (Minn. 2017) (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
Loving v. State , , 643 (Minn. 2017).