Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Landa, 642 N.W.2d 720.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Firkus Minn. 2026
In its unique position, a jury “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.” Harris, d at 600 ()
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
T he fact -finder is permitted “to accept part and reject part of a witness ’s testimony.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As a general matter, eyewitness testimony “need not be positive and certain to support a conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Wayne Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. V. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We begin by recognizing that “[a]ssessing the credibility of a witness and the weight to be given a witness’s testimony is exclusively the province of the [fact-finder].”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But witness credibility is a question for the fact-finder to decide, and the district court credited the testimony.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Landa , (noting that it is the jury’s role to weigh the credibi lity of witnesses).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that it is the province of the fact -finder to resolve inconsistent testimony).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 600; (stating that the jury is “free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
It “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.” State v. Landa
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In addressing a sufficiency -of-the-evidence claim, we must determine “ whether a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
It “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.”
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The jury, as the judge of credibility, is free to disregard part of a witness’s testimony and accept another part.”
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Weighing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury.” (citation omitted).
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
State v. Cao 788 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 2010
(“Eye witness testimony, standing alone, can support a guilty verdict.”); (“We have stated that ‘a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.’ ”) (quoting State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518 , (1
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Engle 731 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Assessing *860 the credibility of witnesses and weighing their testimony are within the exclusive province of the factfinder, and the factfin-der “is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.”
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
State v. Dahlin 695 N.W.2d 588 Minn. 2005
(“The weight and credibility to be given disputed evidence are determinations to be made by the jury.”); (“Weighing the credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury.”) In determining whether a lesser-included offense instruction should be given, trial courts must consider only whether a rational basis exists in the evidence to acquit of the greater charge and convict of the lesser — without consi
State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Birk 687 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by