Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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. Murchisongreen2 sentences2011Similarly, when this Court reviews a challenge to a “ ‘factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.’ ” State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435, 440-41 (N.D.1995) (quoting Nehring, 509 N.W.2d at 44 ); accord State v. Lively, 130 Wash.2d 1 , 921 P.2d 1085, 1043 (1996) (“The appropriate standard of review [for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant i 2011Similarly, when this Court reviews a challenge to a “‘factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.’” State v. Murchison , 541 N.W.2d 435, 440-41 (N.D. 1995) (quoting Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 ); accord State v. Lively , 921 P.2d 1035, 1043 (Wash. 1996) (“The appropriate standard of review [for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is requir | 2 | 2 |
State v. Livelygreen1 sentence2011Similarly, when this Court reviews a challenge to a “‘factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.’” State v. Murchison , 541 N.W.2d 435, 440-41 (N.D. 1995) (quoting Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 ); accord State v. Lively , 921 P.2d 1035, 1043 (Wash. 1996) (“The appropriate standard of review [for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant is requir | 1 | 1 |
State v. Livelygreen1 sentence2011Similarly, when this Court reviews a challenge to a “ ‘factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.’ ” State v. Murchison, 541 N.W.2d 435, 440-41 (N.D.1995) (quoting Nehring, 509 N.W.2d at 44 ); accord State v. Lively, 130 Wash.2d 1 , 921 P.2d 1085, 1043 (1996) (“The appropriate standard of review [for sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nehring
green
2 sentences2019Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] "[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction." Schmidt , 2011 ND 238 , ¶ 7, 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). "[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime." Id. at ¶ 10 ; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-1 2019Nehring, 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] “[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.” Schmidt, 2011 ND 238, ¶ 7 , 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). “[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime.” Id. at ¶ 10; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-11(2 | 4 | 2011–2019 |
State v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences2019Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] "[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction." Schmidt , 2011 ND 238 , ¶ 7, 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). "[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime." Id. at ¶ 10 ; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-1 2019Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] "[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction." Schmidt , 2011 ND 238 , ¶ 7, 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). "[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime." Id. at ¶ 10 ; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-1 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences2019Nehring , 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] "[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction." Schmidt , 2011 ND 238 , ¶ 7, 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). "[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime." Id. at ¶ 10 ; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-1 2019Nehring, 509 N.W.2d at 44 . [¶18] “[W]hen this Court reviews a challenge to a factual conclusion that entrapment did not occur, we do not weigh conflicting evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses; instead, we look only to the evidence and its reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to see if substantial evidence exists to warrant a conviction.” Schmidt, 2011 ND 238, ¶ 7 , 807 N.W.2d 593 (quotations omitted). “[E]ntrapment is not established by law enforcement conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit a crime.” Id. at ¶ 10; see N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-11(2 | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Pemberton
green
2 sentences2022State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 15 , 930 N.W.2d 125 . 2022State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 15 , 930 N.W.2d 125 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Foster
neutral
2 sentences2022State v. Foster, 2020 ND 85, ¶ 9 , 942 N.W.2d 829 . [¶6] This Court first determines whether the prosecutor’s actions were misconduct. 2022State v. Foster, 2020 ND 85, ¶ 9 , 942 N.W.2d 829 . [¶6] This Court first determines whether the prosecutor’s actions were misconduct. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.