Cited by

(“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).

We assume that the jury “be lieved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court assumes that “the jury believes the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any 5 evidence to the contrary.”

This court must assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

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.”

(stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).

We assume the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

In doing so, we assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

“A misrepresentation is ‘material’ if when set aside there is no longer probable cause to issue the search warrant.”

We assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We must assume the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and di sbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume the fact- finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore , .

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.

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

(“[I]nnocent or negligent misrepresentations will not invalidate a warrant.”).

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

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.

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

See State v. Moore , (stating that a search warrant wil l not be invalidated by innocent or negligent misrepresentations).

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.”

This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

See State v. Moore , , 105-07 (Minn. 1989).

We must assume “the jury bel ieved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

State v. Moore , (citation omitted).

“[I]nnocent or negligent misrepresentations will not invalidate a warrant.” State v. Moore

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

“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.”

This court must assume that “the jury believed t he state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”