DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101.

734 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S. Ct. at 2684-85, ).
  • State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    On review, this court must assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
    -05 (Minn.1989) (indicating that prior inconsistent statements of grand jury witnesses, in which witnesses initially indicated that they were not present at the murder scene and failed to implicate the defendant, were not exculpatory, but reasoning that even if they were, the omitted statements would not have affe
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    *309 We must defer to the jury’s assessment of a witness’s credibility, -74 (Minn.2006), and we must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,”
  • State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence, reviewing court must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses).
  • State v. Smith 825 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    A reviewing court must assume that the “jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).
  • State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Seaver 820 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Although using “a peremptory challenge to remove a member of a racial minority, alone, does not establish a prima facie case,” Pendleton, d at 726 , “[t]he inference of discrimination can be drawn by proof of disproportionate impact upon the racial group,”
  • State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Instead, we rely on our well-established assumption on review that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hohenwald 815 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Nelson 812 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Nelson 812 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
    We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
    The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ferrier 792 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
  • State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”