Cited by

It is well- settled that, generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (); see also State v. Nestaval, 75 N.W.

The argument also fails under the well-settled premise that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

“It is well -settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (stating that “in a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct the complainant’s testimony need not be corroborated”).

“It is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

Moreover, “[i]t is well -settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

In fact, Carter specifically recognizes that the evidence was “technically sufficient,” that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single credible witness, and that witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder

And because “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness,” G.M.’s testimony is sufficient evidence of the fact that Robinson made racially charged statements.

1 (2018); d 406, 407 (Minn. 1969).

A conviction may rest even on “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness,” and a criminal-sexual-conduct victim’s testimony does not require corroboration, Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

Juries, not appellate courts, are tasked with weighing credibility and it is well- established that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) ().

Meek acknowledges that witness -credibility determinations and the weight to accord a witness’s testimony are “normally jury questions to which a reviewing court defers.” He also acknowledges that “[a] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

Generally, a conviction can be sustained by “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (explaining that “a conviction may be based on a single person’s testimony”).

Wilson acknowledges “[i]t is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” see also State v. Cao

M.S.M.’s brief to this court acknowledges that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

This reflects the general rule that “‘a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.’” State v. Foreman , d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) ().

4 (Minn. 1993) (reversing criminal-sexual-conduct conviction where child victim’s “testimony was contradictory as to whether any abuse occurred at all, and was inconsistent with her prior statements and other verifiable facts”) to argue that A.A.’s testimony was “insufficient evidence.” But “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

For example, in State v. Hill , the supreme court affirmed a conviction based on a witness’s testimony despite the witness’s statements outside of court that he would testify against the defendant because he did not like the defendant.

perform fellatio on him,” and that “these acts were d one with sexual intent.” Most of the district court’s decision was based on the finding that A.P.’s statements were credible, since this was “a case without physical evidence.” The supreme court has stated that “a conviction can rest on th e uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

In general, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Hill

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testim ony of a single credible witness.” State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518

“[I]t is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quoting State v. Hill , 285 Minn. 518, 518, ).

(citing State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518, ).

While a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness, State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518, corroborative evidence may include testimony from others regarding the victim’s demeanor, emotional condition and changes in behavior after a sexual assault.

State v. Hill , 285 Minn. 518, 51 8

ss finding that “[K.S.’s] account [was] credible.” Nyatwori argues that “given [K.S.’s] questionable credibility regarding the alleged assault, the evidence that the assault occurred is insufficient without some independent corroboration.” Nyatwori acknowledges that “[i]t is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 406, 407 (Minn. 1969).

In Foreman, the supreme court reiterated that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d at 539 (quoting State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518, ).

“It is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518

(“Eye witness testimony, standing alone, can support a guilty verdict.”); (“We have stated that ‘a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.’ ”) (quoting State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518 , ).

See State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518 , (noting that “[i]t is well-settled that a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness”).

“It is well established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.” see also State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518 , (“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”).

We have stated that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518

State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518

1 (1990) (sexual assault complainant’s testimony need not be corroborated); State v. Hill, 285 Minn. 518, 518 , (uncorroborated testimony of single credible witness can be sufficient to support conviction).