Cited by

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

268 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Jeremy Lee Krier Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts apply the circumstantial- evidence standard of review in cases where, like here, “the direct evidence of guilt on a particular element is not alone sufficient to sustain the verdict.”2
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Herman Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Myron Remund 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 v. Massoud Amin 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 v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Nadeem Malik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Steven Marczak Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Ray Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7 (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Allen Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. John Lee Bartel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Craig Eugene Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Mut Biel Gach Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Hassan Farth Muse Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Peter Roy Byrnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Leigh Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
Sonny Syhavong v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Bazoff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travis Jerome Norcross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Travares Ladell Cyrus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Steven Ray Odenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine James McMahon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Dujuan Mann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Edward Gary Kowalzyk Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lee Edward Smith, Jr. 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 v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jared Phillip Renner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Sunnyboy Samuels Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jerrad Chad Juhl 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 v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Clayton Francis Marshalek Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jallah Sallah Kollie 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony James Olgeirson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Angel Obidio Calix 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 v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018