Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785.

164 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And this court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In general, this court will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence “on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quoting State v. Lahue , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating this court will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidenc e by relying on conjecture).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Lahue , -90 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An alternative hypothesis does not justify granting relief if the hypothesis is “not plausible or supported by the evidence.”
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Jones, d at 236 (“Which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions that lie within the proper discretion of the trial counsel.”).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Elijah Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wyatt Mindrup Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Appellant does not explain how any of the items .
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bobby Maurice McGary Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” see Hanson, d at 622 (stating that a rational hypothesis negating guilt must be based on more 5 than mere conjecture).
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan Michael Habiger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.”
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To meet this burden, the defendant must “demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-69 (1984).
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Therefore, appellant’s hypothesis is “mere conjecture” and “the reasonable inferences from [the circumstances proved] are consistent only with [appellant’s] guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis.” -89 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
‘Which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions that lie within the proper discretion of the trial counsel.’” –90 (Minn. 1998) ().
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. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The defendant must “demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (holding that a defendant must show his attorney’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that the deficient performance deprived the defendant
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Caroline Mildred Jochum Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State v. 5 Lahue, (“An alternative theory does not justify a new trial if that theory is not plausible or supported by the evidence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by