Cited by

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

758 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Thomas Rose Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts will not dist urb a verdict “if the jury, ac ting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the ne cessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reason ably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty.” –77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Davante Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Guy Robert Franklin Rabold Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Gachohi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing whether the evidence in a criminal case was sufficient, appellate courts are limited to “ascertaining whether, given the fac ts in the record and the legitimate inferences 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. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Randy Donald Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the evidence is “sufficient to permit the juro rs to reach the verdict which they did,” Webb, d at 430, and the jury “c ould reasonably c onclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged,” then this court “will not disturb the verdict.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kendall Duane Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Patrick Brazil Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Direct evidence is [e]vidence that is based on pers onal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Paul Allen Bray v. Starbucks Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“‘Direct evidence’ is ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Black’s La w Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Jude Schnagl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Tavon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brett Judy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 reason ably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty.” Bernhardt v. State , 76–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tymaine Lee Muckle Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Lynn Wise Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cosmas Oseko Nyatwori Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Michael Gould Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Charles Steven Turman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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] 11 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph William Erie Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jon Vernon Tuma Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Bernhardt v. State , n.11 (Minn. 2004) (stating that direct evidence is based on personal knowledge and observation).
State of Minnesota v. James Alan Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We will not disturb the verdict if the [factfinder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innoc ence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reas onable doubt, could reas onably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Reggie Demetrius Pierre Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Janecek 903 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Charles Anthony Tong Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Fabian Jonathan Suggs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rarity Shemeire Abdullah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew James Frederick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-77 2 The 52 pills had a total weight of 31.721 ± 0.005 grams.
State of Minnesota v. Grant Lloyd Greenwood Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Omol Arkangelo Uchodu v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Devante Lemuel Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Neal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court will not disturb the jury’s 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 v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Emmanuel Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lance Cedric Carr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “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, cou ld reasonably conclude that a defendant was guilt y of the offense charged .” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wilmer Govani Montoya Ulloa Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Martin Arth Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Alexander Schill, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017