Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bergeron, 452 N.W.2d 918.

39 citing documents.

James Michael Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
After reviewing Green’s trial testimony, which Green himself presented to the district court, the district court found it to be “self-serving.” This was not a constitutional 6 Green cites to this court’s to support this argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Joseph Bergeron, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Examples of corroborating evidence include “the defendant’s association with those involved in the crime in such a way as to s uggest joint participation, as well as from the defendant’s opportunity and motive to commit the crime and his proximity to the place where the crime was committed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A]ll inconsistencies in the evidence are also resolved in favor of the [respondent.]” .
Joseph Bergeron, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Todd Ferguson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joseph Bergeron v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Bergeron v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lori Ann Fulwiler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
resolved in favor of the state.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In support of his argument, in which the supreme court noted that an objection that evidence is “self-serving” is not valid under the codified evidence rules and that “[t]he objection that testimony is ‘self-serving’ appears to be a variation on the objection that a defendant is incompetent to testify because of an ‘interest’ o
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
State v. Smith 669 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 2003
(stating that accomplice testimony is “‘inherently untrustworthy and must be supported by independent evidence’ ”) ().
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
killed driver of car appellant was robbing); -45 (Minn.1995); (affirming conviction when appellant and others set out to rob gas station and shot and killed two people during the robbery); -14 (Minn.1993); -26 (Minn.1990) (affirming conviction when killing occurred after appellant committed a burglary).
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
State v. Budreau 641 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 2002
In doing so, a reviewing court must recognize that “all inconsistencies in the evidence are * ⅜ * resolved in favor of the state.”
State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
State v. Hooper 620 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Buggs 581 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Ferguson 581 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1998
State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
State v. Zenanko 552 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 1996
We conclude that, although circumstantial, the evidence supporting defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that the facts and circumstances, when looked at in the light most favorable to the verdict, are wholly consistent with guilt of burglary, felony murder, premeditated murder, and its attempt, and inconsistent with any theory of defendant’s innocence.
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Orfi 511 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(trial court may restrict repetitious evidence as long as defendant has full and fair opportunity to put forth his theory of the ease).