DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

  • State v. Back 775 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 2009
    We will allow the verdict to stand “ ‘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) ().
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
    “But, when a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must be ‘consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.’ ” ().
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Johnson 773 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stockwell 770 N.W.2d 533 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Marinaro 768 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hersi 763 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    The verdict should stand “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) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Williams 759 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
    Tscheu argues that the evidence was insufficient because the State’s case was entirely circumstantial and that the State did not eliminate all “inferences other than that [of] guilt.” To support this formulation of the issue, -81 (Minn.2004)
  • State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
    in support of his argument.
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.J. 755 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.J. 755 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
    In support of his argument
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
    (holding that an interview including police statements was admissible because the police statements were offered not “for their truth, but rather to give context to [the defendant’s] responses and admissions on the tape”); -76 (Minn.2004).
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
    Furthermore, 481 (Minn.2004), -81 (Minn.1986), we reversed first-degree murder convictions that were based wholly on circumstantial evidence.
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 739 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2007
    * * * ‘Circumstantial evidence' is defined as '[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation’ and ‘[a]ll evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.’ ” , 477 n. 11 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 595-96 (8th ed.2004)).
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Welfare of S.J.T. 736 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Crow 730 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
    -77 (Minn.2004); -66 (Minn.2000).
  • State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
  • State v. McArthur 730 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 2007
    Typically, when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court reviews the evidence to determine “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.” (citation and quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “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 the defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn.2004) (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Perry 725 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Johnson 719 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2006
    (“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.”) (emphasis added).
  • State v. Clifton 701 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 2005