# State v. Andersen

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · June 30, 2010 · 784 N.W.2d 320

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721100

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kenneth Eugene ANDERSEN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** June 30, 2010
- **Citations:** 784 N.W.2d 320; 2010 Minn. LEXIS 339; 2010 WL 2606031
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Anderson
- **Judges:** Paul, Meyer, Anderson, Barry
- **Cited by:** 181 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721100

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that in determining the circumstances proved, “we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the jury, acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state” (quotation o…
- holding that a warrant application established probable cause supporting the warrant’s issuance, as alleged omissions were not material to the probable-cause determination; in other words, including the “omissions would have no impact on the probable cause determination”
- stating that a Franks challenge requires the defendant to show that a search-warrant application “includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause”
- concluding that the search warrant application’s reference to “possible evidence of foot traffic” was appropriately qualified by the word “possible”
- stating that a reviewing court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture” (quotation omitted)

## Opinion text

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Meyer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721100. Public record. Not legal advice.