Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341.

54 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jawane Deshawn Bellazan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 (Minn. 2004) (“[T]he district court ’s findings that Fields engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the unavailability of Johnson and that the intentional wrongful conduct actually did procure the una vailability of Johnson, 10 were not clearly erroneous .”); State v. Her
State of Minnesota v. Angela Rena Cloar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ryan Thomas Dorry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Trifiletti Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Marcel Dylan Zephier Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See id.; -48 (Minn. 2004); 909 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Alberto Martinez Reyes Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An out-of-court statement may be admitted as non-hearsay pursuant to rule 80l(d)(l)(B) if the district court makes a threshold determination that the witness's credibility has been challenged, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. James Antrquier Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-48 (Minn. 2004); review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Frenz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, this court analyzes the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the convicti on, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Sandra Kay Kouba Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’ s credibility has been challenged and whether the prior statement would “bolster the witness’ [s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’s credibility that was challenged.” State v. Fields , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Hector Garcia Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Fields , -48 (Minn. 2004) (internal quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Alonzo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A police officer testifying in a criminal case generally may not, under the guise of explaining how an investigation fo cused on the defendant, relat e hearsay statements of others.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Simon Benjamin Danquah Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’s credibility has been challenged and whether the prior statement would “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” -48 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Soyan Mohamed-Rashid Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’s credi bility has been challenged and whether the prior consistent statement would “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect 9 of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Fields , , 345 (Minn. 2004) ; see generally State v. Horst , , 31 (Minn. 2016) (holding an appellate court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo when reviewing a district court's decision to deny suppression of defendant's statements to police in the absence of a Miranda warning).
State of Minnesota v. Allen Lawrence Scarsella Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which the y did.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Lee Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(holding that a defendant who fails to object on hearsay grounds forfeits an appellate challenge on the issue).
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Andre Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-48 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Nunn, d at 909).
State of Minnesota v. Robera Abdella Ganamo Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 341[, 349] (Minn. 2004).
Gary Cornelius Whitehurst v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gary Cornelius Whitehurst v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-48 (Minn. 2004); review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “‘limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” (d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989)).
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balenger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balenger Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A. Standard of Review This court’s “review of the sufficiency of the evidence is ‘limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” (quoting State v. Webb, 4 ).
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
We also recognized in Goodloe that after Moore we had reiterated that “a finding of premeditation does not require a specific length of time for deliberation.” Goodloe, d at 421 -22 ( ).
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
State v. Cox 779 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 2010
(citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 136-37 , 119 S.Ct.
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
When faced with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we conduct a thorough review of the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
State v. Moua Her 750 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2008
Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Wright 726 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 2007
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
State v. Caulfield 722 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2006
Lindberg v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005
Our review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
We note, however, that we spelled Paige's first name "LeTerrance” (affirming Victor Fields' conviction for the first-degree murder of Paige).
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().