DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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.

  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
    Even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, 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.”
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
    To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Boitnott must show that his 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.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
    In order to succeed on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Voorhees must demonstrate that his counsels’ performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsels’] errors.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001
    To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must show that trial 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.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Fedor 628 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    ‘When we review a claim by an appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, we are limited to determining whether a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” ().