Cited by

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

734 citing documents.

Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
This court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary”
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Caswell 551 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
A reviewing court must also assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
State v. Gaitan 536 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Netland 535 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1995
State v. Chao Yang 533 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
Whether or not additional information concerning Hardaway was exculpatory, the failure to produce exculpatory evidence “ ‘will not require reversal unless it would have materially affected the [grand jury] proceeding.’ ” -05 (Minn.1989) (quoting Olkon, d at 106 ).
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Hendrickson 528 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Hendrickson 528 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Maidi 520 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Maidi 520 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
State v. James 520 N.W.2d 399 Minn. 1994
A trial court’s determination of the genuineness of the prosecutor’s response “is entitled to ‘great deference’ on review.” (); see also Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
The jury decides the level of credibility to assign a witness, and need not credit a defendant’s exculpatory testimony.
State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
we said: A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the *248 application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-06 (Minn.1980) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
ANALYSIS Evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,” and it is assumed that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
State v. Huss 506 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1993
State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kelly 504 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
We must assume the jurors “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Trong Kim Huynh 504 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1993