Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

State v. Watkins 820 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Ortega 813 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Nelson 812 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Nelson 812 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
‘We 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, “could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn.2004) (quotation omitted).
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fitman 811 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Pegelow 809 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Reynua 807 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Hawes 801 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 2011
State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
We 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 [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn.2004) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Brown 796 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brown 796 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Arnold 794 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Pierce 792 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
We analyze insufficient-evidence claims by determining “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 v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. MOHOMOUD 788 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Berrios 788 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
Explained Staunton v. State 784 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2010
We will not disturb a guilty 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) ().
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Brandes 781 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
2 When reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, we “ascertain[ ] 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 v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
When reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘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.’ ” ().
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009