Cited by

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

735 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Troy Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court must assume that “the jury believed t he state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Dawda Jeng Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jose Ventura Hernandez Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Wayne Stewart, II Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t a s s u m e “ t h e j u r y b e l i e v e d t h e s tate’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Guevara, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cal Joseph Reckinger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota, vs Clayton Robert Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Lashaun Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
that he had come across the firearm and this “strongly suggest[ed] he wanted the gun to remain in the home.” 4 Caldwell, ().
State of Minnesota v. James Ernest Piere Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed t he state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Andre Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The appellate court must assume the “[fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lee Cooley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Susan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Levon Elias Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dale Swift Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Richard Dean Applequist Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Ray Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Nicholas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume “t he jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Barry Richard Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must as sume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Isaias Hidalgo Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved 4 any evidence to the contrary.”
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
We "extend a broad review" of questions of fact when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, Butala v. State , , 338 (Minn. 2003) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), and leave "[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony" in the province of the jury, State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Leeroy McCulloch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 2407194, at *6 (Minn. App. May 29, 2018) ().
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In so doing, we assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,” particularly when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Alejandro Zapata Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume “the jury belie ved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Michael Parkhurst Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Frank Logan, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Demon Fain Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We defer to the credibility determinations made by the jury and assume that it “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State 7 v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Shane Anthony Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court assume s that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Kendra Joanne Shulman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Chevelle Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
that examination of the informant might be helpful.”
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Edward Pugh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume the factfinder “believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Alex Gordon Sillerud Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Moore , (“ The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the [fact-finder] to determine.”).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witne sses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan David Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Majinieke Vasha Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brett Allen Goulet Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And we enter the analysis assuming that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Richard Robert Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jason Earl Moos Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wendy Sue Littlewolf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”