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. Wallace, 558 N.W.2d 469.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
    For example, we affirmed the defendant’s conviction for attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct where the defendant “unbuckled and began to remove the belt on his pants,” in addition to other evidence.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    As to the offender, “the jury may infer a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”); (A victim’s reaction to a defendant’s conduct is also “evidence relevant to proving [defendant’s] intent.”) When N.P.
  • State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See, d 469, 472 (Minn. 1997); State v. O’Hagan, review denied (Minn. Sept.
  • Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
  • Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
    -74 (Minn.1997) (disposing of first-degree *540 felony murder appellant’s meritless pro se claims in summary fashion).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
    hough the evidence is circumstantial, it is ‘consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty’ — i.e., that he procured a knife and brought it to Fisher’s bedroom where he stabbed her to death — and is ‘inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except *475 that of guilt.’ ” Leake, d at 320 (); (stating that, “[c]onsidering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and the totality of the circumstances, the jury could reasonably conclude that the only plausible inference to b
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    This court’s review is limited to determining whether the fact-finder, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences therefrom.”
  • State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bolstad 686 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 2004
    Nevertheless, “circumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other type of evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational or reasonable hypothesis except for that of guilt.”
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    e verdict if, after a careful analysis of the record, we determine that “a jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences therefrom.” ().
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
    “[(Circumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other type of evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational or reasonable hypothesis except for that of guilt.”
  • State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
    Our review is “limited to ascertaining whether a jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences therefrom.”
  • State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
  • State v. McGrath 574 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. McGrath 574 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    3 Respondent, arguing that the court was within its discretion to infer that appellant intended to engage in sexual conduct