Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13.

69 citing documents.

Juan Pachuco Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(observing that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to give their testimony are determinations to be made by the trier of fact).
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
s to be made by the factfinder.” (quotation omitted); 9 (“[C]redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of clear error.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Roberts, d at 869, 871 (discussing evidence that defendant disposed of blood-stained items and 8 expressed awareness of likelihood of consequences); - 16 (Minn. 1984) (discussing evidence that defendant expressed sorrow and attempted to dispose of victim’s body and blood-stained clothing).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Kami Lynn Ohm, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See DeMars v. State , (“The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”).
Yia Her, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing that “the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence”); (“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d at 870 -71; see also DeMars v. State , (recognizing that a factfinder is not bound by expert testimony that defendant was mentally ill because evidence of defendant’s conduct supported a determination that he knew his conduct was wrong).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“The credibilit y of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations [for] the factfinder.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”).
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roberts , , 869 (Minn. 2016) ( , 820 (Minn. 2009) ; Davis v. State , , 522-24, 527 (Minn. 1999) ; State v. Wilson , , 245-46 (Minn. 1995) ; DeMars v. State , , 15-16 (Minn. 1984) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, Ramsey County, City of St. Paul v. R. M. W. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that it is district court’s role to weigh conflicting testimony and assess witness credibility).
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts 876 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Beruk Meskelu Zeru Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Beruk Meskelu Zeru Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although the district court was not bound by the psychologist’s expert testimony, (affirming a district court’s rejection of expert medical testimony in determining that a defendant had not presented sufficient evidence of his mental-illness defense), we note that the psychologist’s testimony was uncontroverted because the state presented no evidence, other than Officer Baumann’
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
(stating that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”).
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
( , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)); see Minn.Stat.
State v. Eakins 720 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Eakins 720 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004
On appeal, we conduct “ ‘a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach its conclusion.’ ” (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , ).
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
Brown v. State 682 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2004
We conduct “a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the trial court to reach its conclusion.” (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
State v. Odell 676 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2004
“[A] defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(stating “[t]he credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfin-der”).
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
On appeal, we "conduct[] `a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the [trial court] to reach its conclusion.'" (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252 , ).
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
Matter of Knops 536 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1995
Matter of Knops 536 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1995
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
“The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
State v. Brom 463 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1990
11 “In Minnesota, a defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.” ( , 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)).
Matter of Kottke 433 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1988
Matter of Kottke 433 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1988
See, (shot and killed sister); (stabbed wife of man she delusionally believed loved her); (murdered sleeping mother).
Deerson v. Metal-Matic, Inc. 423 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1988