DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ashby, 567 N.W.2d 21.

79 citing documents.

  • State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Hoppe 641 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    A prosecutor must not “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
    On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine “whether, on facts in the record and legitimate inferences drawn therefrom, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty.”
  • State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Colvin 629 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
    Moreover, it was not clear from the statement itself what [de-clarant] was taking responsibility for there was no mention of the murder at all.” (emphasis in original).
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Hunt 615 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Gates 615 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    The prosecutor’s closing arguments must not “distract the jury from its proper role of deciding whether the state has met its burden.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    In reviewing the evidence we must “assume the jury believed the prosecution’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    for example, we affirmed the suppression of a third party’s alleged admission to the charged crime because there was no physical evidence linking the third party to the crime and because an eyewitness testified that she was certain that the killer was not the third party.
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
    eath of a human being with intent * ⅜ * but without premeditation.” “While a conviction based only on circumstantial evidence warrants stricter scrutiny, such ‘evidence is entitled to the same weight as any evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.’” () (additional citations omitted).
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998