Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ostrem, 535 N.W.2d 916.
- State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Mitchell 687 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
State v. Mitchell
687 N.W.2d 393
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“[P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” *397
- Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
- Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
- In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Pirsig 670 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
-
State v. Richardson
670 N.W.2d 267
Minn. 2003
(sua sponte instruction on aiding and abetting, where aiding and abetting was not originally charged, was not an impermissible amendment to the complaint).
- State v. Kelly 668 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
State v. Kelly
668 N.W.2d 39
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The first inquiry focuses on whether the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
- State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
- State v. Anderson 657 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Anderson 657 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
- State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
- State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
-
State v. Nelson
632 N.W.2d 193
Minn. 2001
4 Appellant concedes that “a person’s presence, companionship and conduct before and after an offense are relevant circumstances from which a person’s criminal intent may be inferred,” but asserts that the evidence here establishes only his presence at the *201 scene of the crime and not criminal culpability.
- State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
- State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
- State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Matelski 622 N.W.2d 826 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Matelski
622 N.W.2d 826
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A defendant is criminally liable for aiding and abetting if he or she played a knowing role in the crime and took no steps to “thwart its completion.”
- State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Breaux
620 N.W.2d 326
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citations omitted) (emphasis added).
- State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
- State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
- State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
- State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
- State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
- State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
- State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Taylor
594 N.W.2d 158
Minn. 1999
(citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 381 , 88 S.Ct.
- State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
-
State v. DeVerney
592 N.W.2d 837
Minn. 1999
(conducting a 17.05 analysis when a conviction is at variance with the indictment).
- State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
- State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
- State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
- State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
- State v. Traxler 583 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1998
-
State v. Traxler
583 N.W.2d 556
Minn. 1998
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence, such as the evidence in this case, will be upheld “so long as a detailed review of the record indicates that the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
- State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
- State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
- State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998