Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Watkins, 650 N.W.2d 738.

68 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Andreas Jeffrey Joyner Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alan Penhollow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Jason Bibbs Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Franks , 8 State v. Watkins
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jay Honan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 738, 741 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that appellate courts “defer to the fact-finder on determinations of credibility”), -93 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that, on the “unusual” facts of the case, the state failed to meet its burden of proof when the only direct evidence of abuse was th
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Morocho Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Franks , State v. Watkins
State of Minnesota v. Nyapuot Dech Kuek Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. Y. Q., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Holeman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Holeman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tony Allen Gohl Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that we generally defer to the fact -finder’s credibility determination).
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Archie Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Djamil Vagif Abiyev Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kueth Pamier Ruae Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 738, 741 (Minn. App. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Jawane Deshawn Bellazan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 26 68, 73 (Minn. 2009)
State of Minnesota v. James Harold Black Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. James Henry Maxwell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Scott Wayne Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Gunderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Gunderson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“We defer to the fact-finder on determinations of credibility.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We do not question the weight of the video evidence, and we presume the district court found the officer’s testimony credible
State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tawan E. Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Louis Meek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 738, 741 (Minn. App. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Tavarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nathanael John Prevo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We have held that “the presumptive disposition for a permissive consecutive sentence is always an executed sentence.” (interpreting the language in Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.F).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Earley Romero Blevins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lynden Stone Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Sara Jane Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dontae Deshaun White Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John McClatchey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Rami Hussein Hassan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Franks , State v. Watkins
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Amed Dommer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Czarnecki Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Lind Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Marissa Rae Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We thus 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. Khalil Malik Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But the “threshold issue” of whether the consecutive sentences imposed were permissive under the sentencing guidelines “requires interpretation of the sentencing guidelines, which is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Rannow , ().
State of Minnesota v. Paul Raymond Lund, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(deferring to fact-finder on credibility 7 determinations).
State of Minnesota v. Lucas Cosme Roman-Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Accordingly, we defe r to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieve d any evidence to the contrary,” State v. Moore
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that appellate courts defer to fact-finder on witness credibility); d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997) (holding that appellate courts defer to fact-finder on weight of evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Watkins , (stating that appellate courts defer credibility determinations to the fact-finder).
State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ira Dell Sholar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Further, “[w]e defer to the fact-finder on determinations of credibility.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“When consecutive sentencing is permissive and the court pronounces a sentence that is to run consecutively to another executed sentence, the presumptive disposition for the consecutive sentence is also execution of the sentence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).