Supreme Court of Minnesota· 5/31/2013

State v. Silvernail

Citations

831 N.W.2d 594
2013 WL 2364094
2013 Minn. LEXIS 306

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole”
stating that even in cases involving circumstantial evidence, the fact-finder is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence
providing that the factfinder is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence and of witnesses even in cases based on circumstantial evidence
explaining that courts must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the [s]tate’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses” (quotation omitted)
explaining that, under circumstantial evidence standard, reviewing court first identifies circumstances proved and then decides whether circumstances proved “are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt” (quotation omitted)
declining to resolve which standard of review applied because the evidence was sufficient under either standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Dietzen, Paul, Stras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named State v. Silvernail

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

State v. Silvernail
Court of Appeals of Washington· 1980-01-23· cited 30×

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.