Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hatfield, 639 N.W.2d 372.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Proof of a formal agreement to commit a crime is not required for a conspiracy conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Donald James Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. Stat. § 609.175 (2020).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see also Minn. Stat. § 609.175 (2020) (requiring proof of an agreement and at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit a crime, and in furtherance of the conspiracy, “one or more of the parties does some overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy.” Minn. Stat. § 609.175 (2018)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn. App. 2001), (affirming the sufficiency of the evidence of the child -endangerment conviction and determining that physical harm was likely to result where father stored anhydrous ammonia in an altered propane tank in his home , in the proximity of his children , and officers suffered from burning sensation in eyes and difficult breathing upon enteri ng the home ) aff’d, ; State v. Huffman , No. A15 -0917, 2016 WL 1724163, at *4 (Minn. App. May 2, 2016) (affirming conviction
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hatfield , , 376 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Allen Linscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 186, (requiring “common object” of conspiracy to commit the criminal offense that is the “object” of the conspiracy); (stating that agreement to conspire “must be shown by evidence that objectively indicates an agreement”).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Domingo Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 (2014); (stating that the existence of a conspiracy does not require a formal agreement and may be inferred from the evidence); State v. Burns, 215 Minn. 182, 189, (stating that a formal agreement is not required to establish a conspiracy and that conspiracy may be proved by circu
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Adolph Donte Valentine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION I. “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, [appellate courts] are limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [decision-maker] to reach [its] verdict.”
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
When a conviction is challenged based on sufficiency of the evidence, “we are limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.”
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. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tice 686 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ajfd, (addressing only conspiracy conviction), this court affirmed a conviction of child endangerment.
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Tracy 667 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-15 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Feb.