Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70.

127 citing documents.

State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
State v. Wallace 558 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 1997
-59 (Minn.1991) (reviewing a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence and requiring a reasonable inference other than guilt); 78 (Minn.1985) (requiring that the evidence make a theory consistent with innocence seem unreasonable), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
K.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 538 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
K.B. v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 538 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Burns 524 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(jury is in the best position to evaluate the circumstantial evidence surrounding a murder and the jury’s verdict must be given due deference), cert.
State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
State v. Klawitter 518 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1994
On the use of the Frye rule in Minnesota, (“blood splatter” analysis), (polygraph evidence) cert.
State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
State v. Opsahl 513 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1994
State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
A *47 conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the “ ‘reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.’ ” (), ce rt.
Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
State v. Borchardt 478 N.W.2d 757 Minn. 1991
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett 476 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Schaeffer 457 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 457 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1990
*197 Notwithstanding the general inadmissibility of polygraph evidence, cert.
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
State v. Fenney 448 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1989
*58 (Minn.1985) as: “The scientific technique on which expert testimony is based must be scientifically reliable and broadly accepted in its field."
State v. Schwartz 447 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1989
See, (graphological personality assessment), cert.
State v. Webb 440 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1989
State v. Webb 440 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1989
“A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence and will be upheld if the ‘reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.’ ” cert.
State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Mathews 425 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Gurske 424 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Higgins 422 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
othesis except that of his guilt.” A conviction based on circumstantial evidence may stand “only where the facts and circumstances disclosed by the circumstantial evidence form a complete chain which, in the light of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt, any reasonable inference other than that of guilt.” (citations omitted).
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987