Cited by

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

735 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lucas Cosme Roman-Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Accordingly, we defe r to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieve d any evidence to the contrary,” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Travis Adam Westgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court must assume “the [factfinder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Francis Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We review the record “assuming the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witn esses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” 8 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lamee Motley 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 v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We assume that the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Patrick Brazil Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We must 10 assume that the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume th at “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Kendall Duane Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Jude Schnagl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the 9 contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brett Judy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any eviden ce to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Tymaine Lee Muckle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lynn Wise Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believe d the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Edward Canady Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Cosmas Oseko Nyatwori Minn. Ct. App. 2017
T he reviewing court must assume the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved a ny evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Ali Elmi Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Turman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Matthew Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph William Erie Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Charles Anthony Tong Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Jeffrey Scharenbroich Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court assumes that the “jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 4 580, 584 (Minn. 1980) (stating that “weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury”).
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Rarity Shemeire Abdullah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Graham Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court assume s that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew James Frederick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Christian David-Robert Wille Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State v. Wilson 900 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2017
Followed State v. Wilson 900 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2017
(citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 95-97 , 106 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Davonte Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Wilmer Govani Montoya Ulloa Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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. Fernell Damon Nickson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing cour t must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kariakis Valencia Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that we assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary”).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Joseph Hodapp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, assuming the 8 jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Howard Isensee Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Hirman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Ardis Leann Copeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Troy Donald Emmons Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Scotty Nicolas Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Moore , d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Raphael Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But we must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Oranz Calhoun Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(The “inference of discrimination can be drawn by proof of disproportionate impact upon the racial group,” such as the total exclusion of that racial group from the jury).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court assumes “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Galen Dale Littlewind Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017