Cited by

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

734 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accordingly, we defer to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon James Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cory Allen Wuollet Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ervin Peirce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that “the jury believed 4 the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joeseph Norman Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and 10 disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Nicholls Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Corey Vern Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Randall Ferrell Decker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court 9 must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Rae Flint Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We view facts in the light most favorable to the conviction and assume the district court “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Fuller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In doing so, we assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Deonte Lewis-Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by