DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

  • State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    In doing so, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
    In reviewing a jury verdict, “we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
    In reviewing a jury verdict, “we 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.”
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Suhon 742 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    (“The jury is in the best position to ...
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
    “Premeditation is defined as ‘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. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
    2 The second element of the heat-of-passion defense is objective, analyzing whether “the passion was provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances.”
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Al-Naseer 690 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    Further, “counsel must have the discretion and flexibility to devise a trial strategy that best serves the client.”
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Moua 678 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 2004
    Premeditation is defined as “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. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    Premeditation is a state of mind and, therefore, generally proved through circumstantial evidence of the “defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
  • State v. Carney 649 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Carney 649 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    To prove ineffective assistance, Vick must show that his “counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance deprived [him] of a fair trial.”
  • State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Stewart 624 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    It is the jury’s duty to weigh the evidence, not the court’ (recognizing jury in best position to evaluate credibility of witnesses and weigh evidence, and therefore its verdict must be given due deference); see also Blank, d at 92 (observing “[ljawsuits are not tried in a vacuum”).
  • State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Nystrom 596 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1999