Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davis, 656 N.W.2d 900.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Guillermo Lenin Huaman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially .
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Lee Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
.” State v. Davis , rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Sean Garrison McNerthney Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And “the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence regarding intent.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Jantile Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Chad Friese Minn. Ct. App. 2021
rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. David Deluna Minn. Ct. App. 2021
rev. denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Lavel Osgood, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Davis , review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Darsche Chaudaun Wharry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(observing that “[t]he intent element of a cr ime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially”), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota, vs Clayton Robert Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis , review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Nadia Martynyuk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Because Martynyuk’s intent is an element of aiding and abetting, and because intent is generally proven circumstantially, review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003), we ap ply the heightened circumstantial-evidence standard of review.
State of Minnesota v. George Anthony Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Donald Rinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Intent is generally proved through circ umstantial evidence because “it involves a state of mind.” review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Landis Sherel Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 900, 905 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lee Trotter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially.” review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially, and the [factfinder] is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence regarding intent.” review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John F. Bonner, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially.” review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In addition, “[b]ecause the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence, its verdict must be given due deference.” Id.; (“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially, and the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence regarding intent.”), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Staci Jo Montgomery Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[t]he intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially”), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdiaziz Ali Adan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[t]he intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially”), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edward Valentine Forsythe Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 900, 905 (Minn. App. 2003) (“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state 6 of mind, is generally proved circumstantially .
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kihanya Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 900, 905 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Artis Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is entitled to due deference.” review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Pederson 840 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003) (“The intent element of a crime, because it involves a state of mind, is generally proved circumstantially.”).
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. May 20, 2003).