Cited by

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

757 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Admission of hearsay statements can be plain error if “the statements, by the application of well-settled law, constitute inadmissible hearsay.”
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst 880 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst 880 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2016
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining “direct evidence”).
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the 4 necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ray Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[P]resence, companionship, and conduct before and after an offense is committed are relevant circumstances from which the jury may infer criminal intent.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen Bachman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining circumstantial evidence “as evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and “all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony”) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Givins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Dewayne Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Dewayne Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, 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. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that circumstantial evidence is not based on personal knowledge or observation).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Givins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Pierre Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James William Graham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paula Jean Yackel 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’”; circumstantial evidence is “‘evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.’” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alterations omitted) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 595-96 (8th ed. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.11 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that circumstantial evidence is not based on personal knowledge or observation).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dashaunta Dmar Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, appellant's “presence, companionship, and conduct before and after an offense is committed are relevant circumstances from which the jury may infer criminal intent.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Rindahl, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Christopher Seals Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robin Lyne Hensel 874 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffaney Diane Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2016