Cited by

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

735 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And we assume that the fact-finder “believe d the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Moore I”); -95 (Minn. 1990) (“Moore II”) (reversing and remanding for a new trial because guilty verdicts for both first-degree premeditated murder and second- degree manslaughter were inconsistent).
State of Minnesota v. Eithan Armani Green Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We assume that the jury “be lieved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Chase Allen Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court assumes that “the jury believes the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any 5 evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Yovontre Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court must assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Dirk Udo McHugh Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jarred Isaac Mosdal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Angalie Naidu Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Donald Joseph Hall, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kathleen Margaret Eileen Ochs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. DaJuan Wendell Webster Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
For example, an inference of racial discriminat ion can be drawn upon “proof of disproportionate impact upon the racial group, [such as when] t he prosecutor totally excluded all blacks from the venire.”
State of Minnesota v. Tomak Zain Zarif Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Galle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lee Andrew Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Susie Edana Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).
State of Minnesota v. Deon Dell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We assume the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
Sonny Syhavong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In doing so, we assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
James Lindley Limper v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Duviaze Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Mosenden Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A misrepresentation is ‘material’ if when set aside there is no longer probable cause to issue the search warrant.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. M Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Kent David Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and di sbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Dwane Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume the fact- finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jon Dorien Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Robert Tichich Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore , .
State of Minnesota v. Xieng Khan Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Moore , (“The weight and credibility of the te stimony of individual witnesses is for the [fact-finder] to determine.”); see also Caldwell, d at 384.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[I]nnocent or negligent misrepresentations will not invalidate a warrant.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Pitts Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
State v. Hall 931 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 2019
at 540 (Hooten, J., dissenting) (citing State v. Cole , , 50-51 (Minn. 1996) ; State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989) ; State v. Mytych , 292 Minn. 248 , , 282-83 (1972) ; State v. Walker , 279 Minn. 441 , , 508-10 (1968) ; State v. Staples , 126 Minn. 396 , 148 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Delorien Robert Daniel Chatman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Ward Hohlen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Juan Carlos Garcia Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Moore , (stating that a search warrant wil l not be invalidated by innocent or negligent misrepresentations).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Lee Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Marissa Rae Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We thus defer to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Soyan Mohamed-Rashid Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Moore , , 105-07 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Kenneth James Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We must assume “the jury bel ieved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Allen Lawrence Scarsella Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Moore , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Machelle Jean Frisbie Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[I]nnocent or negligent misrepresentations will not invalidate a warrant.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Muqtar Jaranow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Victor Prude Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Harley Harlen Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.”