Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Hanke, 530 N.W.2d 784.

34 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts will uphold a jury’s verdict if, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state ’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, [the jury] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Al-Naseer , (alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at a person is present at the commission of a crime without disapproving or opposing it,” the fact-finder may “consider this conduct in connection with other circumstances [to] reach the conclusion 7 that he assented to the commission of the crime, lent to it his approval, and was thereby aiding and abetting its commission.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In addition, if the record “shows that a person is present at the commission of a crime without disapproving or opposing it,” the fact-finder may “consider this conduct in connection with other circumstances [to] reach the conclusion that he assented to the commission of the crime, lent to it his approval, and was thereby aiding and abetting its commission.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that a killing “furthered the commission of the robbery by facilitating the escape of the three men, preventing McMillan from later identifying his assailants, and preventing the possibility of retaliation.”); (“[T]he record supports a finding that the murder was committed in furtherance of the robbery, 11 particularly because it shows that the first shot was fired just after [the victim] stated ‘get off me’ and resisted the robbery effort.”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d. Thus, the supreme court has concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of aiding and abetting homicide when the jury could have reasonably inferred accomplice liability, based on evidence that the defendant was aware that the actor possessed a gun, and the defendant stated after the attack that “he figured that [the victim] would have gotten shot.” –90 (Minn. 1995) (emphasis omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nisius Dealvin McAllister 862 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2015
See id.; (holding that a shooting was “in furtherance of” a robbery when “the first shot was fired just after [the victim] stated ‘get off me’ and resisted the robbery effort”).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
(stating that “presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which a person’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred”).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
The verdict will be upheld if, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, [the jury] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.”
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
The jury’s verdict will be upheld if, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, [the jury] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.”
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
See, (stating that aiding and abetting liability can be inferred from the “defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime,” and “defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances”).
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
A “defendant charged as an accomplice to first-degree murder is not required to have predicted with certainty that a companion would intentionally murder the victim— only that the murder was reasonably foreseeable as a probable consequence of the intended crime.”
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
The jury’s verdict will be upheld if, “giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, [the jury] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.”
In Re the Welfare of S.H.H. 741 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Under section 609.05, “liability attaches when one plays some knowing role in the commission of a crime and takes no steps to thwart its completion.” -59 (Minn.2006)
In Re the Welfare of D. W. 731 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
lanning to use a bat m the assault is not determinative because intent may be inferred from factors such as, “[appellant’s] presence at the scene of the crime, [appellant’s] close association with the principal before and after the crime, [appellant’s] lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and [appellant’s] flight from the scene of the crime with the principal.”
State v. Jackson 726 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 2007
1 A criminal defendant’s intent may be inferred from “factors such as defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, defendant’s close association with the principal before and after the crime, defendant’s lack of objection or surprise under the circumstances, and defendant’s flight 'from the scene of the, crime.”
State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
But this court has held that “[w]hether the defendant could reasonably foresee that the victim would be murdered is a question of fact for the jury.”
Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
provides a comprehensive statement of the facts.
State v. Laine 715 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
I. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, we inquire “whether, given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
When reviewing sufficiency of evidence, we inquire whether, “given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
State v. Young 710 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2006
When reviewing sufficiency of evidence, we inquire “whether, given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
Turnage v. State 708 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2006
State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
In addition, in several other decisions since at least 1988 we have consistently recast the words of the statute, omitting the phrase “by the person.” See, (after quoting the accomplice liability statute, summarizing the elements of proof under the statute, including the requirement that the state must show that “the murder was reasonably foreseeable as a probable consequence of the intended crime”); (sta
State v. Olhausen 681 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2004
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
(murder was reasonably foreseeable consequence of aggravated robbery so as to permit accomplice liability for first-degree murder committed by co-defendant); Minn.Stat.
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
When reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, we are “limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.W.O. 594 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
State v. Atkins 543 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1996
State v. Ostrem 535 N.W.2d 916 Minn. 1995
Nonetheless, subsequent cases refer to the statute as "aiding and abetting.” See, e.g., State v, Lucas