Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Savoie, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 7 defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nikia Kylene Balen. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kalen Duane Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In contrast, 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) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sergey Alekseyevich Porada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Sergey Alekseyevich Porada Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mark Lee Whitcup Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mark Lee Whitcup Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr. 854 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr. 854 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2 “‘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).
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Onokwuozo Onyemekeihia Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The jury’s verdict will not be disturbed “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.” d 465, 476–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Brynetta Passon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Brynetta Passon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Joseph Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Suzanne Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The verdict will not be disturbed “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. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ogonnaya Vincent Ofor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The verdict should not be disturbed “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. Silvernail 831 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. McElroy 828 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012