Cited by

When reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.’ ” ().

Appellate review of a sufficiency claim is “limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.”

See, (stating that premeditation includes procuring a firearm from another part of the house and walking down a hallway to kill the victim); (stat *314 ing that the defendant’s “actions in going into the kitchen, obtaining the knife, returning to the bedroom, and stabbing the victim numerous times reasonably impl[ed] that he had determined to kill [the victim]”).

Even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Cooper, the jury’s verdict of guilty of first-degree murder “indicated that it not only believed the defendant acted with intent, but that he acted with premeditation as well.” Dahlin, d at 599 ().

But we have recognized that “the police must also be allowed to encourage suspects to talk.”

-09 (Minn.1978) (stating that warrantless felony arrest is valid if officers have factual information from reliable sources sufficient to reasonably believe suspect committed a felony).

Shephered, (stating that “the fact that the jury concluded that there was premeditated intent to kill, even though they could have opted for either of the lesser included offenses actually submitted to them, is a strong and sufficient indication that the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to have second degree felony murder submitted”); (determining that when the district court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder, the failure to g

We have held that a defendant is not prejudiced by denial of an instruction on unintentional homicide when “the verdict * * * indicates that the jury believed that the defendant not only had the requisite intent but also acted with premeditation.”

See, (holding evidence of premeditation sufficient where the victim was tied up and stabbed at least 40 times, and the attack took place in more than one area of the house over an extended period of time); (holding evidence of premeditation was sufficient where the defendant admitted hitting the victim with a candy dish, going to the kitchen in search of a knife, and then stabbing the victim 17 times in the bedroom).

at 516 ; (stating that when the trial court instructed the jury only on first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder, the failure to give requested lesser-included offense instructions did not prejudice the defendant on the issue of intent because the jury’s verdict of guilty of first-

A reviewing court must “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.”

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, “we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case, we “are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”

(quoting LaFave & Scott, supra); see, e.g., United States v. Blue Thunder, 604 F.2d 550, 553-54 (8th Cir.1979) (defendant brought butcher knife used as murder weapon to the murder scene); (defendant carried gun from one area of the house, down a hallway, and into the bedroom of sleeping victims); , (Minn.1978) (defendant carried knife from kitchen to wounded victim’s bedroom).

AlNALYSIS On appeal from a determination that each of the elements of a delinquency petition have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, “an appellate court is limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts and legitimate inferences, a fact-finder could reasonably make that determination.” ().