Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(An appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court “views the evidence in a light most 8 favorable to the verdict and assume [s] the [fact-finder] believed the state’ s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
Troy William Drusch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witne sses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An appellate court carefully analyze s the record to determine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the fact -finder 5 to reach the verdict that it did, assuming that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses an d disbelieved contrary evidence,” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Trial counsel “must have the discretion and flexibility to devise a trial strategy that best serves the client.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “view[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Because a jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence, we give a jury verdict “due deference.” State v. Brocks
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “view[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdi ct and assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “view[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court “view[s] the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
State v. Brocks (Brocks I)
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because a jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence, we give a jury verdict “due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because a jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence, we give a jury verdict “due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because a jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence, we give a jury verdict “due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
State v. Moore 846 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2014
“Premeditation is a state of mind generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
(stating when no objection is raised at trial to an alleged conflict of interest, the petitioner “must demonstrate that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests” (internal quotations omitted)).
State v. Smith 819 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 819 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
“Premeditation is a state of mind generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
but extends to any situation in which a defendant’s counsel owes conflicting duties to that defendant and some other third person.” State *528 v. Brocks, (quotation omitted).
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010