Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754.

142 citing documents.

State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Cepeda 588 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Cepeda 588 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(the presumption of innocence must be overcome "by proof [of guilt] beyond a reasonable doubt").
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Collins 580 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The test is whether “the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty ⅜ * * .”
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ring 554 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McAdory 543 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Chao Yang 533 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Dillon 529 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
State v. Starkey 516 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1994
“Where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the verdict will be sustained on appeal when the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (citation omitted).
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
A verdict will not be disturbed “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.”
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Starkey 507 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
See, -31 (Minn.1978); -57 (Minn.1988).
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Friend 493 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1992
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
*123 (); see also Olson, d at 820 (citing Minn.R.Evid.
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
State v. Jobe 486 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1992
State v. Hummel 483 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1992
State v. Hummel 483 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1992
(emphasis in original) (quoting State v. De Zeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47 , ).
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
State v. Davidson 481 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1992
In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we give a great deal of deference to the jury, and a verdict will not be disturbed “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.”
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
-58 (Minn.1988); -86 (Minn.1982).
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finally, “the plan to commit first degree murder can be formulated virtually instantaneously.”
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990