Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cermor Rio Boakai Minn. Ct. App. 2022
20 any reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Peterson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
’ ” McInnis, d at 891 ().
State of Minnesota v. Emilio Nieto Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 th an guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Freddie Tyrone Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 .” State v. Peterson , ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota Minn. 2021
When reviewing a conviction based on circumstant ial evidence, we apply a “heightened two-step test.” State v. Petersen , –7 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Allen Mindermann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“If a reasonable inference other than guilt exists, then we will reverse the conviction.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sullivan Michael Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Petersen , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Russel Allen Doucette Minn. Ct. App. 2021
reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Shunzhong Li Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Bonacci-Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Daniel Finley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jazmyne Amanda-May Shinabarger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A conviction must be reversed “[i]f a reasonable inference other than guilt exists.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Lipe Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (stating that if the language of a rule of criminal procedure is plain and unambiguous, appellate courts follow the language of the rule).
State of Minnesota v. Daquan Ossie Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
Followed State v. Lee 929 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2019
State v. Petersen , , 6 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Jared Phillip Renner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court assumes that “the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with th[e] verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.3
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Thoresen 921 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2019
State v. Petersen , , 7 (Minn. 2018) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, vs Clayton Robert Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Sawina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
prior to its commission.” (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.18 (2 016)).
State of Minnesota v. Jallah Sallah Kollie Minn. Ct. App. 2018