Cited by

In discussing the motive evidence, the concurrence/

Because a finding of premeditation does not require a specific period of time for deliberation, premeditation can occur when a person makes a decision shortly before acting on it

A defendant’s state of mind is “generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” State v. Hughes

“[P]remeditation is ‘generally proven through circumstantial evidence,’ and is often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing.” (quoting Leake, d at 319).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

We “assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses an d disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Hughes , (quotation omitted) .

17 Balandin focuses on each category of injury separately, argues that each category was non- lethal, and concludes that Yedvabnik’s death was the result of a “brutal assault.” But premeditation “is often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing.”

See State v. Hughes , (concluding that the state has the burden of removing all reasonable doubt).

State v. Hughes , , 313 (Minn. 2008).

This is because “[t]he jury is in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.”

Even under a circumstantial-evidence analysis, “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotations omitted).

(“It is rare for the State to establish a defe ndant’s state of mind through direct evidence.”); (“Because it is a state of mind, premeditation is generally proven through circumstantial evidence, and is often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing.” (quotations and citation omitted)).

State v. Hughes , , 313 (Minn. 2008).

See State v. Hughes , , 313 (Minn. 2008) ("We have recognized in several cases that procurement of a weapon constitutes evidence of premeditation."); Bangert v. State , , 544 (Minn. 1979) (concluding that the jury's finding of premeditation was reasonable where defendant retrieved a rifle, walked to the bedroom, raised the r

approached a man’s truck to ask for help, the gas station was close d, and she was worried that he might also be “a bad guy.” This court defers to the credibi lity determinations made by the jury because juries are “in the best position to weigh the 13 credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.”

The jury was “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” The jury believed that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual contact between Erie’s bare genitals and A.H.’s anal opening.

Premeditation is a state of mind , “generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” (quoting Leake, d at 319 ).

We have recognized, when assessing the sufficiency of evidence of premeditation, that premeditation is a state of mind “ ‘generally proven through circumstantial evidence,’ and ‘often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing.’ ” Fox, d at 224 (quoting State v. Hughes, 11 ).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that the fact-finder is “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position 6 to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best 6 position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Andersen, d at 329; (stating that juries are “in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony”).

Premeditation is “generally proven through circumstantial evidence” and “often inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the killing.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).