Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, 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 v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
0 , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quoting 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Whartons Criminal Evidence § 1:8 (15th ed. 1997)), 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.” , 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007) (alteration in original) ( , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kamal Elyas Maqadin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bernhardt v. State , –77 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
e district court reasoned, “[e]ven if [Stewart] did not ‘live’ at the 502 3rd Avenue residence, all e vidence points to her being at the very least an overnight guest.” 1 “‘Direct evidence’ is ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’” Bernhardt v. State , n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ian Ryo Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In sum, 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 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” –77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Vernon Dale Howard, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” –77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Suncom, LLC v. Robert Feuling d/b/a West Side Liquors of Sartell, LLC, and West Side Liquors of Sartell, … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Hamilton Whitney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Hamilton Whitney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Donson 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 the defendant was proven guilty of the charged offense.” –77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas Karnowski Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Larondo Connell Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Larondo Connell Willis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Leonard Caruthers Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. James Roland Bain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Gene Kremmin 889 N.W.2d 318 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 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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) (quotations omitted).