noting an appellate court will not disturb the verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”
How later courts described this case
- noting an appellate court will not disturb the verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”
- explaining that circumstantial evidence is not based on personal knowledge or observation
- defining circumstantial evidence “as evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and “all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony”
- defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Kalmio, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 103 (2014)
We decline to adopt Minnesota’s Bernhardt formulation for determining when a victim’s fear of a perpetrator is admissible; however, we agree our formulation merits clarification.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Burrell, 2005 Minn. LEXIS 270 (2005)
We distinguished the situation in Bernhardt from that in State v. Tovar, 605 N.W.2d 717 (Minn.2000), where an interrogator’s exaggeration of his knowledge of facts regarding the crime “turned out to be true.
The opinion
ANDERSON, PAUL H„
Justice, (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Justice Gilbert.