Cited by

atements to the police, the district court w as free to reject the victim’s in -court testimony and accept the victim’s out-of-court statements, which were recorded on the officers’ body cameras and 8 admitted as evidence at trial .1 (stating that a jury may accept part and reject part of a witness ’s testimony); -85 (Minn. 1980) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict based on the out-of-court statements of two recanting witnesses).

(concluding that it is the exclusive function of the fact -finder to weigh credibility) .

“This is especially true [when] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”

“This is especially true whe[n] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [factfinder].”

801(d)(1)(D); (affirming admission of victim’s prior consistent statement made to police officers within minutes of incident).

In doing so, we “assume the evidence supporting the conviction was believed and the contrary evidence disbelieved.”

Such statements, commonly referred to as present sense impressions, ar e not hearsay because the immediacy of the statements indicates “that there [was] little time to consciously fabricate a story.”

“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on c onflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” State v. Pieschke

“This is especially true whe[n] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980).

“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclu sive function of the jury.” State v. Pieschke

Appellant argues that the footage is not admissible as a because too much time passed between the assault and recording of the footage.

801(d)(1)(D); State v. Pieschke

This court gives deference to the fact-finder—especially where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony —because weighing the credibility of 6 witnesses is its exclusive function.1

(holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict based on two recanting witness’s out-of-court statements).

“This i s especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony , because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”

“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [fact-finder].”

“This is especially t rue where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [fact -finder].”

5 contrary evidence disbelieved.” State v. Pieschke

“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” State v. Pieschke

In so doing, we assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,” particularly when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony

On review of a criminal conviction, this court construes the record “most favorably to the state and will assume the evidence supporting the conviction was believed and the contrary evidence disbelieved.”

“This is especially true whe[n] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the [fact-finder].” d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980).

1 Although Bragg’s attorney moved for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict,” we treat the motion as one for judgment of acquittal.

“This is espe cially true whe[n] re solution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.” State v. Pieschke , 84 (Minn. 1980).

We assume that the jury was persuaded by the evidence supporting the conviction, especially “where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”

2(a), 2(b)(4) ; see also State v. Pieschke , (stating that weighing witness credibility is the exclusive province of the jury).

“This is especially true where resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”

“[W]eighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”

“This is especially true whe[n] resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, because weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury.”