Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368.

68 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
While a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness who observes a defendant committing a crime, if the witness’s observation is fleeting or limited, it must be corroborated
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that “a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“The jury determines the weight and credibility of individual witnesses .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that appella te courts defer to the factfinder ’s determinations regarding the weight and credibility of individual witnesses).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998).
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In State v. Miles, the supreme court reviewed a case in which the defendant requested an expert on eyewitness identification because of “the statistically low reliability of cross-racial identifications.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Justin Dillard Thomas 890 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
our supreme court addressed the issue of cross-racial eyewitness identification in the context of expert testimony.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Troy Adam Gocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]t is well-settled in Minnesota that it is the province of the jury to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the testimony of any individual witness.”); d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998) (noting that “the jury determines the weight and credibility of individual witnesses and .
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Furthermore, our supreme court has stated that “a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness.”
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian James Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Identification is a question of fact for the jury to determine.” see also Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116, 97 S. Ct. 2243, 2254 (1977) (stating that unless there is a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” identification testimony is for the jury to weigh (quotation omitted)).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness.”
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is limited to ascertaining whether the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty given the facts in evidence and the legitimate inferences which could be drawn from those facts.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 368, 373 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Joseph Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Matthew Mosley 853 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2014
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
State v. Miles (Miles I)
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Johnson 811 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
Miles v. State 800 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See State v. *801 Miles, (stating that “a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness”).
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Austin 788 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Super 781 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
State v. Lopez-Rios 669 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2003
With regard to proffered gang-expert testimony, district courts have the responsibility of scrutinizing such testimony, “preferably outside the presence of the jury, ‘and excluding] it where irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise unhelpful.’ ” ().
State v. DeShay 669 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2003
The district court should scrutinize proffered gang expert testimony, preferably outside the presence of the jury, “and exclude it where irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise unhelpful.”