DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426.

854 citing documents.

  • State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, our review is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
    When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().
  • State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Caldwell 815 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
    In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is limited to a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.”
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    ANALYSIS Sufficiency of the Evidence In considering a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, this court’s review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
    rom Gabrych Park to 307, you would go one block and turn right and go two houses.” “Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our review on appeal is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    ANALYSIS I. Sufficiency of evidence In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [jurors] to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
    For example, -32 (Minn.1989), another murder case, we began our analysis by listing the “circumstances” accepted by the jury that were “consistent with the hypothesis of guilt.” These included “the facts that the body of the victim was found in the vicinity of the [defendant’s] apartment; [the defendant] was seen speaking to [
  • State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
    When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (stating this court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict).
  • State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
    On review for sufficiency of the evidence, we analyze the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009