Cited by

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

758 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jacob David Jackson Boucher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002); (stating that circumstantial evidence “must point unerringly” to guilt (quotation omitted)).
Marcel Moses v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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. Eric Lee Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raeleen Kay Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Gary Alvin Paananen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John McClatchey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining “direct evidence” as “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (alteration in original) (quoting Direct Evidence, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)) ).
Rami Hussein Hassan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Roberto Amed Dommer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Todd Gerald Pletcher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. David William Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Wayland Deshawn Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Porte , see also Bernhardt v. State
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lee Brame Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Andrew Hondl Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses.
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Mary Jo Provost Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Dzenan Jay Kamencic Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Farookh Mohamed Abdulazeez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Direct evidence is “evidence that is ba sed on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Maung Soe Myint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quota tion omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Emily Maye Namyst Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Czarnecki Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Mitchell Spry Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) (stating that a higher level of scrutiny is warranted if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence) .
State of Minnesota v. Daniel John Mallet Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Bernhardt v. State , n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining circumstantial evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fanpatrick Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kartumu Sonia King Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lemond Bingham Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Boisjolie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Korolchuk Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Deshaun Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Alfred Haywood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Demont White, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004) (noting that court will not disturb verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”).
State of Minnesota v. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Damien Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-77 (Minn. 2004) (declining to disturb verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Lind Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Liban Khalif Abdirahman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Eithan Armani Green Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts will not “disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Alan Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chase Allen Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jarred Isaac Mosdal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Angalie Naidu Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew David Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof be yond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo nmn Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 In order to convict appellant of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery, the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant “played a knowing role in the commissi on of the crime.” Bernhardt v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Newsom, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Zachariah Steven Marczak Minn. Ct. App. 2020