Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brocks, 587 N.W.2d 37.

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Darrnell Maurice Samir Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Ray Samaniego Minn. Ct. App. 2026
VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6.3 The right to conflict-free representation “extends to any situation in which a defendant’s counsel owes conflicting duties to that defendant and some other third person.” (quotation omitted).
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Holeman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Holeman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Pazdernik Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that counsel’s advice about what defendant should discuss at trial was reasonable trial strategy).
State of Minnesota v. Kueth Pamier Ruae Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Amal Mohamed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, [appellate courts] view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jawane Deshawn Bellazan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. James Henry Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edgard Francisco Talave Latino, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Drew Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Th e reviewing court must “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wayne Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Steven Jonas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court noted that counsel’s “decision was reasonable in order to avoid creating sympathy for [the victim] and hostility toward [defendant] or his attorney.” Id.; (concluding that defense counsel’s decision not to cross-examine several state witnesses was a reasonable trial tactic).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene DuPaul Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jenko Triebwasser Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts must “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” 2 (Minn. 1998).
McKinley Juner Phillips v. State of Minnesota 7 N.W.3d 577 Minn. 2024
McKinley Juner Phillips v. State of Minnesota 7 N.W.3d 577 Minn. 2024
( (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Steve Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Under this standard of review, appellate courts must “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Louis Meek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Tavarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Jesse Lee Helget (A20-1036) v. Commissioner of Public Safety, State of Minnesota, vs. Jesse Lee Helget (A22-0103) Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Freddy Ivan Bau Rocano Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In caselaw reviewing trial counsel’s performance for ineffective assistance, the supreme court has stated that “counsel must have the discretion and flexibility to devise a trial strategy that best serves the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Sara Jane Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dontae Deshaun White Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John McClatchey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Wlemonger Emmanuel Deward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at we generally do not review include “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation,” id., counsel’s decisions regarding what evidence to present, (“What evidence to present and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel”), and counsel’s advice to the client, e.g., State v. Brocks, 8 (concluding that counsel’s advice about what the defendant should discuss at trial was reasonable trial strategy).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
represent[s] an atto rney’s decision regarding trial tactics which lie within the proper discretion of trial c ounsel and will not be reviewed later for competence.”), and counsel’s advice to the client, (concluding that counsel’s advice about what the defendant should discuss at trial was reasonable trial strategy).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Modtland Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Amed Dommer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Dzenan Jay Kamencic Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Czarnecki Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We “assume that the [fact -finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Boisjolie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Lind Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
11 We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The appellate court must a ssume that the fact -finder “believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Danny Hugh Burns Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under this standard, we assume that the jury or the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. William Daniel Finley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The appellate court assumes that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved c ontrary evidence.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under this standard, the jury is said to have “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Tad Isaac Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Steven Ray Odenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When applying that standard, this court assumes that the jury “disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” State v. Griffin , State v. Brocks , (statin g that appellate courts “assume that the jury 5 believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence ”).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine James McMahon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Dujuan Mann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by