In re the Welfare of G. D. R.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026) Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order of the Juvenile Division of the Hennepin County District Court finding that appellant on November 5, 1978, committed an act of criminal damage to property exceeding $300, Minn.Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(3) (1978). The district court did not make a finding of delinquency but deferred the dispositional hearing until this appeal is decided. Having concluded that the evidence of defendant’s participation in the act with which he was charged was legally insufficient, we reverse.
The evidence established that appellant and another juvenile committed an act of criminal damage to property on November 6, 1978, at a drainage and land-fill project. Appellant was not charged with that act. He was charged with having committed criminal damage to the same property on the previous weekend. Nevertheless the evidence of misconduct on November 6 was used circumstantially to prove appellant’s role in the earlier incident. Because the evidence did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that others had committed the earlier act and that he was merely trying to duplicate their actions on the sixth, the state’s proof is legally insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant participated in the offense charged.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.