Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holmberg, 527 N.W.2d 100.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Hope Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Bruce Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See State v. Holmberg , (holding that, because the probable cause evidentiary standard is much lower than the evidentiary standard for a conviction, a probable cause argument is irrelevant on appeal of a conviction) , rev. denied (Minn. Mar .
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy O’Day Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Steven Masog Minn. Ct. App. 2025
support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” d 100, 103 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Javier Diaz Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, a probable-cause determination generally is “irrelevant” once a de fendant has been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of 8 the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause .” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Karl Evald Auleciems Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jenko Triebwasser Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Isabella Anne Gendron Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(explaining that although the defendant challenged probable cause, this was an irrelevant argument because the district court entered a conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Patrick Allen Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(construing a challenge to denial of dismissal for lack of probable cause following conviction as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
First, once a defendant has been found guilty, a pretrial probable-cause challenge is immaterial because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Cameron Oneal Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(reasoning that a postconviction challenge to probable cause is irrelevant where there was sufficient evidence for a conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Eugene Gerald Secord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To support this argument
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Bila Shaka Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Although a defendant may assert a defense of “reliance on official actions or pronouncements regarding his conduct,” State v. Holmberg , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3 On review of a conviction, the issue of probable cause is irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Thomas Howell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Moreover, once a defendant has been found guilty, a pretrial probable -cause challenge is immaterial because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” d 100, 103 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. John Louis Corrigan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (March 21, 1995).
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that probable -cause argument after conviction is irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a convictio n is much higher than probable cause”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Neil Ray Lystad Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Once a defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a probable -cause challenge becomes irrelevant because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “is much higher than probable cause.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(st ating that, after conviction, a probable -cause argument was irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Xa Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.” aff’d (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A defendant may defend against a criminal charge by claiming “that he acted in reliance on official actions or pronouncements regarding his conduct.” State v. Holmberg, 9 review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Olhausen 669 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Tomlin 609 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Tomlin 609 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating claim of failure to dismiss for lack of probable cause is irrelevant where defendant has been convicted because standard for sufficiency of evidence to support conviction is much higher than probable cause), review denied (Minn. Mar.