Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Petersen, 910 N.W.2d 1.

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kacey Emmanuel Kamara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Lex Phaengdara Minn. Ct. App. 2026
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
(noting that “infliction of wounds to vital areas” and “[a]n indication that a shooter took careful aim at the victim” may indicate premeditation (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (noting that the “infliction of gunshot wounds from close range” indicated premeditation (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alexander Albert Minn. Ct. App. 2026
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Angie Lynn Schimming Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Fredy Saavedra Olivar Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Brett Rodney Sanko Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Justice King Whitelaw Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Justice King Whitelaw Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Remer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Petersen , -7 (Minn. 2018)
State of Minnesota v. Dean Marty Oelkers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Morris Robert Chie Ryan 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. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jamaal Terrance Tanna Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Allen Saarela Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if the circumstances proved “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Nathaniel Arnold, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Alan Orv Weaver Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if the circumstances proved “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jerome Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jerome Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Henry Blackwell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen
State of Minnesota v. Detwan Cortell Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In other words, it must “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted); (stating that circumstantial evidence must “point unerringly to the accused’s guilt” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Harlan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Calvin Cooliage Reavers Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reached its conclusion of law based on direct 17 or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Andre Scott, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Teresa Marie Massey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Steven Masog Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We will uphold the verdict if the circumstances proved form “a complete chain” which “leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Antonio Walker Hansbrough Minn. Ct. App. 2025
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Christopher Savon Ledbetter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Motive evidence can include “prior conduct by the victim known to have angered the defendants.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. R. Z. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Minn. 2024
Because the State relied solely on circumstantial evidence to prove Isaac’s knowledge and intent, we apply a heightened two-step standard of review.3
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Wolter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
We turn to the next step of our circumstantial evidence standard, which requires us to consider whether the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, are consistent with “any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ().
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” that leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Regina Marie White Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “so directly to 6 the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Hughes, d at 313; –8 (Minn. 2018) (collecting decisions).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Allen Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, -67 (Minn. 2020) (analyzing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge against the elements of the offense as set forth by state statute); - 18 (Minn. 2020) (same); -9 (Minn. 2018) (same).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Kershawn Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” that leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But we will uphold the conviction if the “circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Norbert Pius D’Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Joseph Matusovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).