Cited by

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

734 citing documents.

State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
“The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.”
State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The reviewing court must assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (stating this court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict).
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jorgenson 758 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Blevins 757 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Blevins 757 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
State v. Rambahal 751 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2008
Ford, d at 614 ; (noting that there is a “lesser burden of establishing a basis for inquiry by the court in an in *94 camera hearing” than that required to support a disclosure order).
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Green 719 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
State v. Mems 708 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 2006
“Misrepresentations invalidate a warrant when they are (1) deliberately or recklessly made, and (2) material to establishing probable cause, meaning probable cause could likely not be established without them.” ().
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006