Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782.

175 citing documents.

State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(b) The error was plain “An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Casserly Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (qu otation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Murtada Ahmed Abdelrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that the jury “believed the st ate’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sharmarke Sahal Musse Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tanya Jo Eidhammer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ronald Stauffer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Byron Stark Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that the trier of fact “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Alan Beckstrand Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Billy Joe Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume that the trier of fact “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.”
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
State v. Webster , , 786 (Minn. 2017).
State v. Wilkie 924 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wilkie 924 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Webster , , 785 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Curtis Dawson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Duane John BlackBull Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, whic h is typically established if th e error contravenes case law, a 12 rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Robert Kampsula Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 782, 786 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Micah Lee Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. George Anthony Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Shane Lester Gullickson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We limit our re view of the sufficiency of the evidence to ascertaining whether the jury , giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the [appellant] guilty.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Dominguez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Howard Stanke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lavale Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2017
onal belongings at each other’s homes, or that they had introduced each other to their family and or friends.” Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited “to ascertaining whether the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the appellant guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2017