Cited by

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

734 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Robert Edwardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Robert Edwardson 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. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that on review, this court assumes that the jury “disbelieved any evidence to the contrary”).
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran 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. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]his court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, assuming the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is inappropriate to hold an in camera review only “to allow defense counsel to conduct a fishing expedition.”
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Hussein Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the supreme court has held that it is inappropriate to disclose the identity of a confidential informant or to hold an in camera inquiry only “to allow defense counsel to conduct a 3 fishing expedition in the hope of discovering other possible misrepresentations on which to attack probable cause for the warrant.”
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mark Lee Whitcup Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We assume that the fact- finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Lee Whitcup Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. 3 Moore
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
-81 (Minn.2003) (concluding that the defendant’s absence from the motion hearing was not prejudicial because the defendant’s presence would not have changed the outcome of the motion hearing); (concluding that the omission of allegedly exculpatory evidence was not prejudicial because it did not affect the outcome of the proceeding).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This court defers to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by