71 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2035 34 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2035“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives stricter scrutiny than a conviction based on direct evidence.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted). 2035“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives stricter scrutiny than a conviction based on direct evidence.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted). | 29 | 31 |
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horstgreen2 sentences2026State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 39-40 (Minn. 2016); see also State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)). 2025Appellant appears to frame his argument under the standard of review this court applies when the state relied on direct evidence at trial. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted); see, e.g., State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (stating that, for murder conviction, defendant’s statement, “‘I want him dead,’ was direct evidence of her mens rea”). | 8 | 9 |
Bernhardt v. Stategreen2 sentences2024The second step requires us to independently review the facts proved and assess whether the inference drawn by the jury from the facts proved is rational and whether any inferences contrary to 2 See Evidence, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining circumstantial evidence as “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and direct evidence as “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”); Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct and cir 2024The second step requires us to independently review the facts proved and assess whether the inference drawn by the jury from the facts proved is rational and whether any inferences contrary to 2 See Evidence, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining circumstantial evidence as “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and direct evidence as “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”); Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct and cir | 5 | 34 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2016“Circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation and all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[A] conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.” State v. Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Minn. 1994). 2014Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” Id. “[A] conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.” State v. Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Minn. 1994). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Silvernailgreen2 sentences2014Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” while circumstantial evidence is “based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 604 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring) (quotations omitted). 2014In other words, “direct evidence, if believed, directly proves the existence of fact without requiring any inferences by the fact-finder.” State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 604 (Minn. 2013). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2026Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” See State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412 , 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted). 2024Direct evidence is “ ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’ ” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Clark, 739 N.W.2d 412 , 421 n.4 (Minn. 3 When viewed in a light most factorable to the verdict, the record also supports the conclusion that the night before the assault, Jones told K.S. that if A.M. came to the residence he was “going to beat her ass.” Because we uphold Jones’s conviction based on other evidence, we do not need to decide whether this | 1 | 5 |
State v. Steingreen2 sentences2035“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives stricter scrutiny than a conviction based on direct evidence.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted). 2035“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives stricter scrutiny than a conviction based on direct evidence.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Samgreen1 sentence2016Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” Id. “‘A conviction based on circumstantial evidence . . . warrants heightened scrutiny.’” State v. Sam, 859 N.W.2d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting Smith, 619 N.W.2d at 770 ). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2015Safety, 1 “‘Direct evidence’ is ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’” Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 2004)). “‘Circumstantial evidence’ is defined as ‘[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation’ and ‘[a]ll evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.’” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 595). 4 356 N.W.2d 801, 803 (Minn. App. 1984) (noting that there was “strong circumstantial evidence” sup | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coopergreen1 sentence2015In general, intent is “generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fleckgreen1 sentence2015“Mere presence in or about a vehicle is insufficient to show physical control . . . .” State v. Fleck, 777 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin
green
2 sentences2025“The verdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a 7 reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation and alteration omitted). 2025“The verdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a 7 reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” Id. “[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation and alteration omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kellogg v. Rhodes
green
1 sentence2024Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Clark, 739 2 Latino also filed a pro se supplemental brief that recounts his perspective of the facts of this case in exhaustive detail, so that we can “see the truth of the events that took place.” We do not separately address it because he does not raise any legal issue or argument that differs from those raised by his counsel. 4 N.W.2d 412 , 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hokanson
green
1 sentence2024In contrast, circumstantial evidence is defined as “ ‘evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340 , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2016Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” Id. “‘A conviction based on circumstantial evidence . . . warrants heightened scrutiny.’” State v. Sam, 859 N.W.2d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting Smith, 619 N.W.2d at 770 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Pieschke
green
1 sentence2014Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” Id. “[A] conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny than convictions based in part on direct evidence.” State v. Jones, 516 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Minn. 1994). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Moorman
green
1 sentence2004"Circumstantial evidence” is defined as "[ejvidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and "[a]ll evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” Id. at 595 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.