Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dale v. State, 535 N.W.2d 619.

57 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, –39 (Minn. 2004) (citing Ani’s possibility statement but affirming the conviction based only on victim’s uncorroborated testimony); (citing the Ani statement, noting the presence of corroborating evidence, and concluding, “this is not such a case”); (affirming conviction based on corroborated testimony); –40 (Minn. 1983) (same); State v. Ga
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Generally, “judging the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” Dale v. State , , 623 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(reviewing elements of attempted first -degree criminal sexual conduct) .
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An appellate court may choose to consider pro se arguments in a criminal case, or address questions where required in the interests of justice.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Michael Aleman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed 2 the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demetreus Anthony McGinnis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “assume[s] that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle 881 N.W.2d 545 Minn. 2016
1(e)(i) (1998) and Minn. Stat. § 609.17 (1998)”); (stating that appellant was convicted of “attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd.
David Richard Carlson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Richard Carlson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony London Foresta Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Lee Zinski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Lee Zinski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(considering pro se arguments raised on appeal).
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although appellate courts can make exceptions for pro se criminal appellants, Loyd provides no legal analysis for his argument and cites to evidence not in the record.
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
(holding that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because newly discovered evidence could have been used only for impeachment of a witness who testified that the defendant participated in the killing); (concluding that new evidence that “does no more than impeach” did not entitle the defendant to a new trial).
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Watkins 650 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Watkins 650 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
1 (1998) (stating that “the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated”); (same); (same), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
Bowser, 305 Minn. at 437 , d at 893 .
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of S.S.E. 629 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(applying same standard in juvenile matters).
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gorman v. State 619 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying petition, where newly discovered evidence was cumulative and merely provided further support for defendant's claim that victim used crack cocaine, which was presented at trial through testimony of at least three defense witnesses and reject
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999