Cited by

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

856 citing documents.

State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Sh aka 927 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Generally this court applies the traditional standard of review, which requires “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.”
Troy William Drusch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Blayon Lawrence Yuoh Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, if an element of the offense is supported by direct evidence, appellate courts examine the record to dete rmine if the evidence is sufficient to permit jurors to reach their verdict when “viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Corrie Alexander Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rondell Russell Camp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dawda Jeng Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Bowen 921 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2019
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Peang Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Michael Strother Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jose Ventura Hernandez Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lee Cooley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, an appellate 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 of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk 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 v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dale Swift Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Richard Willmar Rapatt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Barry Richard Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Isaias Hidalgo Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Montreial Lavell Monroe Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In considering a claim of insufficient ev idence, an appellate court’s review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the reco rd to determine whethe r the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorab le to the conviction, was suffi cient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Frank Logan, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Demon Fain Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, “our review on appeal is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whethe r 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. Twin Cities Care Services Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When an appe llant challenges the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate 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 [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Webb , State v. Cox , (applying the same standard for the review of sufficiency of the evidence to ju ry trials and court trials).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. 911 N.W.2d 510 Minn. 2018
See State v. Webb , , 431 (Minn. 1989) ("Because of our disposition of this issue, we need not reach appellant's other assignments of error.").
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, review by this court is “limi ted 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. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Webb , , 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Anthony Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Alec Martii Soderbloom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Where there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, [this court’s] 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 [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”