Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190.

259 citing documents.

State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
203 n. 11 (Minn.2002) (declining to respond to the argument of the concurrence/dissent because it would require the court to render an advisory opinion).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Bauer 776 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating presumption that jury follows district court’s instructions); (holding no reversible error although prosecutor erred by impermissibly questioning a witness when district court sustained objection and properly instructed jury).
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
-24 (Minn.1995) (holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict even though the record contains evidence of two different factual scenarios because the jury was free to disbelieve[ ] Ostrem’s alibi defense)
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. DeWalt 757 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 755 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(stating that on review we presume that the jury followed the district court’s instructions).
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
( for the proposition that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”).
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Wren 738 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Ferguson 729 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
2410, 2416-17 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005)
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
State v. Pendleton 725 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2007
State v. Martinez 725 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 2007
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Dobbins 725 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Jackson 714 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Penkaty 708 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 2006
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“We presume that the jury followed the court’s instruction.” (citation omitted).
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
State v. Pendleton 706 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
See, (denying a new trial for unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct where misconduct did not deny defendant a fair trial); (upholding admission of evidence where appellant failed to object at trial).
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. White 684 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by