Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480.

202 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(explaining that “evidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt ”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Additionally, the testimony gives context for Williams’ decision to flee after being approached by law enforcement, and “evidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“[E]vidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.”).
State of Minnesota v. Said Sharif Maye 6 N.W.3d 103 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Said Sharif Maye 6 N.W.3d 103 Minn. 2024
(“The jury could and apparently did find the circumstances surrounding his abrupt departure to be incriminating.”).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Terry Allen Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 480, 485 (Minn. 1988) (“[E]vidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 (stating that “evidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“As in all cases, the jury determines the credibility and weight given to the testimony of individual witnesses.”
Joseph Christen Thoresen, Minn. 2021
Little more than statutory language is necessary when “all that is essential to constitute the offense is stated fully and directly.”
St. Louis County Thissen, J. Took no part, Moore, J. State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
A “conviction after a fair trial will stand unless there is actual proof that 23 [the] defendant has in fact been misled as to the charge brought against him, to his prejudice.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[E]vidence of fli ght suggests consciousness of g uilt.”).
Markhel D. Franklin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Bias , , 486 (Minn. 1988) (noting that the indictment touched on "the essential elements of ...
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[E]vidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[E]vidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.” d 480, 485 (Minn. 1988).
Rachael Michelle Parker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Bias , (“[E]vidence of flight suggests consci ousness of guilt.”).
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian George Fitch 884 N.W.2d 367 Minn. 2016
-47 (Minn. 2010); State v. McTague, 190 Minn. 449, 453-55, 252 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Buswell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[E]vidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.”).
Winhaven Court Apartments v. Sally Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Winhaven Court Apartments v. Sally Carney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Other facts beyond the material elements of the offense [a]re available through discovery procedures.” -87 (Minn. 1988); see also State v. 6 Hokanson, (“Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Keith Fultz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
See, -67 (Minn.1993); -47 (Minn.1984).
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
Thus, the circumstances proved must “be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any other ra *144 tional hypothesis except that of guilt.”
State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
-74 (Minn. 2010); -30 (Minn.2010); (plurality opinion).
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
In other words, the circumstances proved must “be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
State v. McDaniel 777 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 2010
(admitting evidence of flight where defendant offered an alternative explanation because, “[n]evertheless, evidence of flight suggests consciousness of guilt.
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by