Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355.

155 citing documents.

State v. Goodloe 718 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 2006
nship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be inferred”; and (3) evidence as to the nature of the killing, i.e., facts “from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.” -41 (Minn.2004) (emphasis omitted) ().
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
iency of the evidence claim, we examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to decide “whether the facts in the record 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.” ().
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
“[T]he evidence as a whole may support a finding of premeditation even if no single piece of evidence standing alone would be sufficient.”
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
State v. Crowsbreast 629 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2001
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Pilot 595 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1999
State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
State v. Thomas 590 N.W.2d 755 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Griese 565 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Cooper 561 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1997
State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
State v. Lodermeier 539 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 539 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
§ 609.18 prior to the commission of the act took place.” (emphasis added).
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
Dale v. State 535 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 1995
State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
But, if a jury conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, “the circumstances proved must be consistent with the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis other than guilt.” ().
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
State v. Arrendondo 531 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995