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. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426.

854 citing documents.

  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
    When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the court must undertake 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 conclusion which they did.”
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    See, , 431 n. 3 (Minn.1989) (no factual basis for theory that defendant killed victim because she laughed at him “following a failed attempt at sexual intercourse”)
  • State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Palmer 507 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
    to bolster this assertion.
  • State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Jaworsky 505 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Goldenstein 505 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    (sufficiency challenge fails when evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit jurors to reach the verdict they did).
  • State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Scharmer 501 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Scharmer 501 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1993
    we reversed a conviction of first degree premeditated murder for insufficiency of the evidence, even though, after the murder, the defendant shaved his beard, gave away some of his clothing, and made an apparently joking reference to a friend that he “did it.” (Minn.1986
  • State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Blahowski 499 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Blahowski 499 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
    This court cannot retry the facts and 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.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Thunberg 492 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1992
    This *539 court cannot retry the facts and 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.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Dunn v. State 486 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1992
  • Dunn v. State 486 N.W.2d 428 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Gerald 486 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Gerald 486 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bickham 485 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Bickham 485 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1992
    The jury “normally is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and [ ] their verdict is entitled to due deference.”
  • State v. Simon 485 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Simon 485 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Shepherd 477 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1991
    In reviewing a claim based on sufficiency of the evidence, the process 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.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    DISCUSSION I When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal, 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. Lehikoinen 463 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Lehikoinen 463 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The 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 [trier of fact] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
    When reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court “recognize[s] that a jury normally is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and that their verdict is entitled to due deference.”
  • State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Glidden 459 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Further, while the scenarios suggested by appellant may be “logical possibilities,” our review of the evidence in this case convinces us that these scenarios cannot be deemed “rational hypotheses.”