Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moua, 678 N.W.2d 29.

74 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ler Htoo Hshee Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Ler Htoo Hshee Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.10 (Minn. 2004) (declining to review unadjudicated counts for sufficiency of the evidence when affirming a conviction of a greater offense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
for impeachment purposes it is not hearsay.”); (“If a statement is offered to show something other than the truth of the matter asserted, for example to impeach a witness .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that an appellate court will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion) ; see also State v. Buchanan , ( discerning no abuse of discretion where excluded evidence that “merely duplicated other evidence already pr
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Moua , , 41 (Minn. 2004) ; see also Loving , d at 644 (arguing over money showed motive).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
(stating that we will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Intent is a state of mind “generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
n.10 (Minn. 2004) (“Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction for drive-by shooting first-degree murder.
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
State v. Guzman 892 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
Loving v. State 891 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2017
42 n.10 (Minn. 2004) (declining to address a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a drive-by-shooting conviction because the evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree-premeditated-murder conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
11 state of mind “generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” d 29, 39 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Elview Hancock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alexis Elview Hancock Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Intent is a state of mind and is “generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from a defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
Such evidence includes the number of times the defendant used the murder weapon and the number of wounds inflicted, the infliction of wounds to vital areas of the body, Holliday, d at 563; and the amount of time between the infliction of the wounds, McArthur, d at 50.
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
The court described in detail the evidence presented to the jury of planning activity, which we have defined as “‘facts about how and what the defendant did [before] the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing....’” ().
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Davis 820 N.W.2d 525 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
State v. Hurd 819 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 2012
Motive evidence can include “prior threats by the defendant to injure the victim,” and “ ‘prior conduct of the victim known to have angered the defendant,’ ” Hughes, d at 314 (quoting Moore, d at 361 ).
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
To prove premeditation, the facts must establish “ ‘that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place.’ ” ().
Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
ire proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill,” or “require any specific period of time for deliberation,” the State “must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place,” (emphasis added).