Cited by

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

854 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(affirming conviction on circumstantial evidence, and rejecting possible “scenarios [that] stretch the concept of ‘rational hypothesis’ to absurd limits”); (stating that the jury is best able to weigh conflicting evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DECISION I. Sufficiency of the Evidence This court’s review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence “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. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Hamilton Whitney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Hamilton Whitney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Larondo Connell Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Larondo Connell Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
ANALYSIS Where an appellant challenges 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 of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under the traditional standard, “we make a painstaking review 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. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Bruce Rostie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Bruce Rostie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A jury, however, “is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and [its] verdict is entitled to due deference.”
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Karau Minn. Ct. App. 2016