Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Waiters, 929 N.W.2d 895.

107 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jamal Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In reviewing the evidence presented, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
Bradley D. Fordyce v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Duke Ogeto Maroko Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Clifton Dale Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
red for first-degree assault—to intentionally inflict bodily injury.” When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wade Ramey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lawrence Benson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When evaluating a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts 5 “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact[-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Malachi Henessey Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3 he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Keith Allan Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When evaluating the sufficien cy of the evidence, we carefully examine “the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Norbert Pius D’Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In evaluating sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Joseph Matusovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In evaluating sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit th e factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Lenard Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
submit to a test, and therefore he “never refused to take a test.” When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we carefully examine the record “to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cermor Rio Boakai Minn. Ct. App. 2022
18 In evaluating sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, the reviewing court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Emilio Nieto Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In evaluating sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would 8 permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When evaluating a claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, “we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Freddie Tyrone Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In evaluating sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason James Loveless Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Jordan Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this c ourt carefully examines the record “to determine whether the facts and the legitimate infere nces drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Lanise Bethune Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 895, 901 (Minn. 2019).
State of Minnesota v. Asa James Kingsbury Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evid ence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chase Michael Schwendeman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact[-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jayson John Rogahn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In evalua ting the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Farookh Mohamed Abdulazeez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
dard of review Under the traditional standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, reviewing courts “carefully ex amine the record to determin e whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts a nd the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Russel Allen Doucette Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In considering the sufficiency of the direct evidence, we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from those facts “would permit the [fact -finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wendlin Linderman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Mitchell Spry Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Alexander James Ray Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Yony Galan-Alvillar Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evid ence, reviewing courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts a nd the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Quaas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the ju ry to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious,” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted) , or contrary to caselaw or standards of conduct.
State of Minnesota v. Edward Lataris Easton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences dr awn from them would permit th e [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To evaluate the sufficien cy of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven LeCuyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious.” State v. Waiters , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tarrence Antwon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In reviewing alleged misconduct, we “view the prosecutor’s statem ents as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence to determine whether reversible error has occurred.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Garcia-Espino Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, reviewing courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court carefully examines the record “to de termine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
Muhamud Ahmed Hirsi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We consider a prosecutor’s closing argument in its entirety rather than focusing on “selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
e underlying his conviction for first-degree assault.1 To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reaso nably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Patrick Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When evaluating a claim concerning the su fficiency of circumstantial evidence, “we carefully examine the record to determine whether the fa cts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James Francis Vierling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court “‘carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact [-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.’” ( 106 (Minn. 2012)).
State of Minnesota v. Raheem Ali Beamon Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Cordero Jarrod Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo nmn Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When evaluating a claim of insufficien cy of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).