State v. Eakins

11 Citing cases

  1. Fletcher Props., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis

    931 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that "neither Minnesota nor the nation overall has a history of recognizing the right to rent property as a fundamental right"

    "Legislation will fail rational basis review only when it rests on grounds irrelevant to the achievement of a plausible governmental objective." State v. Eakins , 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted). Although Fletcher claimed only that the amended ordinance violates its substantive-due-process rights under the Minnesota Constitution, and did not raise a claim under the United States Constitution, we note that "[e]ssentially the same analysis and standards apply under the" United States Constitution.

  2. State v. Newcomer

    A11-1029 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2012)

    In a court trial without a jury, the court must still provide written findings of the essential facts, see Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subds. 2(b), 3(d), and the defendant may still challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, see State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 603 (Minn. App. 2006). II.

  3. State v. Young

    No. A10-553 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2011)

    "This court applies the same standard regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to the review of a trial without a jury as it does to a jury trial." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 603 (Minn. App. 2006). "Our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the determination, was sufficient to allow the fact-finder to make that determination."

  4. State v. Kuhlman

    729 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2007)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Minneapolis ordinance similar to Chicago's invalid, as a matter of Minnesota law, because of the difference in the state's and city's approaches to enforcement

    The state also cites to the court of appeals' decision in State v. Eakins for the proposition that the presumption in the ordinance could not violate principles of criminal law because a petty misdemeanor is not within the definition of a crime under the criminal code. 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn.App. 2006) (citing Minn.Stat. ยง 609.02, subd. 1 (2006), which defines a "crime" as "conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine").

  5. Ndaruhutse v. State

    No. A23-1642 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 13, 2024)

    We decline to disturb the postconviction court's credibility determination because "[t]he credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder." State v. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840, 843 (Minn. 1992) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn.App. 2006) ("[C]redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of clear error." (citing DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn. 1984)). The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's ineffective representation, Ndaruhutse would not have entered his plea.

  6. Ohm v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety

    No. A22-1110 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2023)

    This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn.App. 2006). Here, the district court wrote in its order:

  7. State v. Vargas

    A19-0109 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2020)

    Botello Vargas contends that a window-tint violation is not criminal in nature because it is a petty misdemeanor. See Minn. Stat. ยงยง 169.71, subd. 4(a)(3), 169.89, 609.02, subd. 4a (2016); State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006). He also contends that he did not violate the window-tint law because he was not driving his car on a "street or highway" but, rather, was parked on private property.

  8. Her v. Comm'r of Public Safety

    A19-0201 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2019)

    This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Here, the district court wrote in its order:

  9. State v. Boettcher

    A17-0043 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2018)

    This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations unless there is a showing of clear error. State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Although no marijuana was recovered, appellant may have smoked marijuana and either discarded his paraphernalia or ingested his marijuana cigarette.

  10. State v. Johnson

    A17-0319 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Here, the district court acknowledged that Officer Bahl's police report was "lacking in specific details," but nonetheless made a finding that the officers testified credibly at the omnibus hearing.