Cited by

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

758 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gloria Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Devontay Deshaun Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N Sufficiency of evidence In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court must determine “whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitte d).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Owen Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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 reasonabl y conclude that a defendant wa s proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Edward Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Circumstantial evidence is “evidence based on 4 inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” d 465, 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alterations omitted) (quotation omitted ).
Richard Willmar Rapatt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Richard Schuelke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-77 (Minn. 2004) ( noting deference to verdict if jury, acting with due regard for presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, could reasonably find defendant guilty of charged offense).
State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Chol Alfred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Barry Richard Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Isaias Hidalgo Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Leeroy McCulloch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Anthony Zehrer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anthony Strickland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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] 5 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Eugene Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Th e reviewing court “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.” d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Frank Logan, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Demon Fain Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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 6 guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation and alteration omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Appel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , , 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , , 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
Rachael Michelle Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will not disturb the jurors’ verdict if they , “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasona ble doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarin 913 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Misty Rose Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rogers 912 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , , 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Anthony Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Phillip Ivers Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Alec Martii Soderbloom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Accordingly, this court “will not disturb the verdict if the [fact-finder], 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) (alteration in original).
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Edward Pugh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Lee Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Hacken Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , State v. Harris , , 598 (Minn. 2017) ("For approximately a century, we have applied a separate standard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence."); Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) ("Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.").
Majinieke Vasha Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lloyd Dale Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brett Allen Goulet Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Earl Moos Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wendy Sue Littlewolf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reviewing court will not disturb a 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 [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Adam Westgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Francis Bragg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Walter Marquetta Humphrey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing whether the ev idence was sufficient in a criminal case, appellate courts are limited to “ascertaining wh ether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate infere nces that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Autumn Blakey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).