DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

164 citing documents.

  • Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
    (citations omitted) ( Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
    (explaining that a reviewing court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture”).
  • Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
  • Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
    “We will not overturn a conviction based on cireumstan- *355 tial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Pratt 813 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2012
    The trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence; therefore, “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”
  • State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Gatson 801 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2011
    We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Matthews 800 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hanson 800 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2011
    But “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” Andersen, d at 330 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (); accord Al-Naseer, d at 473 .
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Al-Naseer 788 N.W.2d 469 Minn. 2010
    We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”
  • State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Stein 776 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 2010
    Even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, we have recognized that “the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence!,]” and we “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
    To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Pearson must prove that his “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome [of the proceeding] would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
    we have consistently recognized that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we ‘will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.’ ” Asfeld, d at 544 ().
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
    (applying the Strickland test to claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel); -57 (Minn.1996) (applying the Strickland test to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).
  • Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
  • Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
    In order to succeed in asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Bruestle must demonstrate (1) that his counsel’s performance “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ ” and (2) “ ‘that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for [his] counsel[’s] errors.’ ” (); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
  • Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
  • Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
  • Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
  • Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
    To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Zenanko must show that his 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 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
    “An appellant arguing that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel 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.”
  • Maietta v. Commissioner of Public Safety 663 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Maietta v. Commissioner of Public Safety 663 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance “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.” (citations omitted).