Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545.

87 citing documents.

State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
It is true that “a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.”
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
Tscheu argues that the evidence was insufficient because the State’s case was entirely circumstantial and that the State did not eliminate all “inferences other than that [of] guilt.” To support this formulation of the issue, -81 (Minn.2004)
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“[A] conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.”
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
The conviction may stand only where the circumstances form “a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” (quoting Wahlberg, d at 411 ).
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
Bernhardt v. State 684 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2004
In determining whether the circumstantial evidence in this case is sufficient we can obtain further guidance from a similar case, in which we held the circumstantial evidence to be insufficient to support a defendant’s aiding and abetting second- and third-degree assault convictions, even though the defendant’s brother shot the victim with the defendant’s gun and *481 there was a clear showing of motive and opportunity.
State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Myrland 681 N.W.2d 415 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must “form a complete chain which, in light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Porter 674 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of M.E.M. 674 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Davis 656 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Jrm 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In re the Welfare of J.R.M. 653 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Taylor 650 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 2002
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Dick 638 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A conviction “based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.” (citations omitted).
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
requested that the court instruct the jury that “to convict, the circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” An almost identical instruction was requested and denied in State v. Jones, and this court explicitly concluded there was “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to give the requested jury instructions.”
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
aff'd on other grounds (evidence insufficient to support conviction).
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995