Supreme Court of Minnesota· 5/24/2017

State v. Harris

Citations

895 N.W.2d 592
2017 WL 2265434
2017 Minn. LEXIS 290

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that the reason for heightened review in circumstantial-evidence cases is concern over the inferences the jury makes from facts proved
stating that the reason for heightened review in circumstantial evidence cases was concern over the inferences made by the jury from facts proved
stating that this court must identify circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,” giving deference to jury’s credibility determinations
reaffirming the validity of the circumstantial-evidence standard of review as \the same today as it was when we decided [it] in 1928\ and declining to consider it \outdated\
defining direct evidence as evidence that “proves a fact without inference or presumption”
“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Lillehaug, McKeig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

100 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.