Cited by

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

856 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
When direct evidence establishes an element of the crime, we painstakingly review 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 of Minnesota v. Donald Dequai Crenshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Jason Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Louis Meek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2 State v. Webb , The state indicates that the district court treated the felony theft and misdemeanor assault offenses as lesser -included offenses and “properly avoided entering convictions and imposing sentences” for those offenses.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Christopher James Colgrove Minn. 2023
D-2 (); (“If the jury could reasonably conclude a defendant had been proven guilty, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this court will not disturb the verdict.”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone, A21-1648, Supreme Court, September 27, 2023 Minn. 2023
Once the statute is interpreted, 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.” –58 (Minn. 2021) ().
James Andre Woodard, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Tavarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Damien Paul Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Marc Richard Redmond Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Saldana Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(describing a review for sufficiency of the evidence as a “painstaking analysis” of the entire record).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. C. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Albert Schally 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
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. S. M., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this 5 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,’ is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the verdict that it did.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Trever Joseph Palodichuk Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When the contested element is supported by direct evidence, appellate 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 permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” ().
Marcel Moses v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Breonn Levell Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the appellate court analyzes 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 of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Gary Alvin Paananen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish this element, we view the evidence in the “ light most favorable to the conviction” and determine whether the evidence “was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John McClatchey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
Rami Hussein Hassan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Wayne Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Chad Friese Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Amed Dommer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Todd Gerald Pletcher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When reviewing a case for sufficiency of the evidence , our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to deter mine 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 of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Once we interpret the statute, however, we then conduct “a painstaking analysis of 5 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 of Minnesota v. Robert Lamar Mutcherson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lee Brame Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
Minn. 2021
2(b), we now turn to Friese’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.7 On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “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 of Minnesota v. Samantha Mary Jo Provost Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION When reviewing a case for sufficienc y of the 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 of Minnesota v. Dzenan Jay Kamencic Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Czarnecki Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Roy Biggs Henline Minn. Ct. App. 2021
s no “swindle” because he did not deploy any “trick.” In any appeal in which an appellant cha llenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court is required to conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the 7 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 of Minnesota v. Brian Allen Platt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts 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 of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).