Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scharmer, 501 N.W.2d 620.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
To sustain a conviction of first-degree murder based purely on circumstantial evidence, “[a] detailed review of the evidence in [the] case, made in a light most favorable to the verdict, [must] exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, all reasonable inferences other than that of appellant’s guilt.” Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2024) (defining the elements of first-degree premeditated murder).
State of Minnesota v. Jamarcus Jamond Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jamarcus Jamond Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
othesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.”); (“Circumstantial evidence 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.”); (reversing convictions because “[t]he evidence did not form a complete chain leading so directly to appellant’s guilt as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any rationa
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We have said that in such cases the circumstantial evidence must do more than give rise to suspicion of guilt; [i]t must point unerringly to the accused’s guilt.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
we conducted a “detailed review of the evidence,” and found it insufficient to convict.
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
We have stated, “[I]n such cases the circumstantial evidence must do more than give rise to suspicion of guilt; ‘it must point unerringly to the accused’s guilt.’ ” (quoting State v. Loss, 295 Minn. 271, 281 , ).
State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence “must point unerringly to the accused’s guilt.” (citation omitted).
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
We must ask whether the reasonable inferences legitimately drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented at trial “are consistent with [appellant’s] guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations & citations omitted).
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
Nevertheless, “[c]onvictions based on circumstantial evidence warrant particular scrutiny.”
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. McKenzie 532 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-22 (Minn.1993) (citation omitted).
State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994
State v. Jones 516 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 1994