Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Allen Olson 887 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mary Marie Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, ‘[appellate courts] are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts 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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (“Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”).
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” while circumstantial evidence is “evidence based on inference 4 and not on personal knowledge or observation.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alterations omitted) (quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Loren Clemmensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Loren Clemmensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Herman Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Westley Gordon Vandell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. M. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Gary Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Louis Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, 6 if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” d 465, 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Eggermont Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Harris Wilensky Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Harris Wilensky Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Mark Bowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Amreya Rahmeto Shefa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Roman Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict, we are “limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts 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.” 5 Appellant does not argue that these out-of-court statements were testimonial.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Mark Bowles Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This 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 [the appellant] was proven guilty of the offense charged.” d 465, 476–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by