DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520.

96 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Tommy Salyers, III 858 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 2015
    In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we generally “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine ‘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 of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Appellant further argues that the “circumstances proved do not inexorably lead to the conclusion that [he] specifically intended to damage the door.” But “[i]ntent may be proved by circumstantial evidence including the defendant’s conduct” and “may be inferred from events occurring before and after the crime.” d 520, 525-26 (Minn. 1999).
  • State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. David Wayne Elvig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    and the events occurring before and after the crime.” (-26 (Minn. 1999)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    A claim of insufficient evidence is reviewed to determine “whether the facts in the record 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 v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (stating that a defendant’s state of mind may be “inferred from events occurring before and after the crime”).
  • State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
    In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine ‘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. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, this court determines whether “the facts in the record 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. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    II When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court painstakingly reviews the record to determine “whether the facts in the record 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).
  • State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
  • Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
    As the postconviction court concluded, there was no “contemporaneous mental illness diagnosis or bizarre or psychotic behavior which could have been observed by [counsel] during his representation of [Cram.]” (noting that “events surrounding the crime” are properly considered when making “determination about [the defendant’s] sanity”).
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Levie 695 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 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
    When considering a sufficiency 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. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
  • Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Huttner v. State 637 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    The supreme court affirmed the convictions and, regarding Davis’s April 11, 1997 meeting with his psychiatrist, stated that “[m]isunderstand-ing the doctor’s instructions, [Davis had] discontinued all medications.”
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (evidence sufficient to support conviction for attempted murder where defendant made stabbing motion toward victim, although victim was not actually injured because blade had broken off); (evidence was sufficient to support conviction for attempted ra