Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465.

757 citing documents.

Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Douglas Ankney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Delgado Espinosa Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.11 (Minn. 2004); (Stras, J., concurring in part).
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Achuil Deng Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” (d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004)).2 2 In his pro se supplemental brief, Young contends that his conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.
State of Minnesota v. John Achuil Deng Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 465, 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining “direct evidence” as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rafael O'Toole Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Ardell Gentry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rafael O'Toole Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Truelove Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants “a higher level of scrutiny.”
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”).
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur LaRose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
appellate courts] construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the 1 Circumstantial evidence consists of “evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation and [of] all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jerard Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehrallian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” 5 (-77 (Minn. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2014