Cited by

investigator,” and that she was “[c]hanging stories” about conduct that Okero had denied and for which “[t]here were no eyewitnesses.” Finally, following its decision in Pilot, the supreme court held that “[t]he State telling jury members during closing arguments that they must decide who they believe is not analogous to ‘were they lying’ questions of witnesses on the stand.”

d 339, 356 (Minn. 2008) (stating that fleeing crime scene evidences “consciousness of guilt”); (stating that failure to aid may be relevant in determining whether person convicted of a crime acted with particular cruelty).

o reopen its case-in-chief, a district court considers three factors, also known as the Caine factors: “(1) when the request was made; (2) whether the evidence was material, not cumulative, and concerned a controlling issue; and (3) whether there was an improper purpose for failing to produce the evidence earlier.” 619 (Minn. 2017) () (setting forth the factors and referring to them as the Caine factors).

Prejudice occurs when “there is a reasonable possibility that without the error the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

(“It is the job of a jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses.”); (“It is well established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”).

See State v. Caine , (noting that flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt); (noting that resisting arrest is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt).

(applying plain-error analysis to unobjected-to alleged error).

When a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when view ed in a light most favorable to the conviction, wa s sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.” (quotation omitted).

4 D E C I S I O N I. Evidentiary ruling “We will reverse evidentiary rulings only if the district court clearly abused its discretion and the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

We review the denial of a

Scott also evaded handcuffs, broke free from the officers, and fled from the scene, all of which is “evidence of consciousness of guilt.”

State v. Caine , (quotation omitted).

-18 (Minn. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by , State v. Dahlin , -96 (Minn. 2005).

When assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we analyze the record to determine whether the evidence, “when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.”

As a result, we review “the disposition of a party’s request to reopen its case after the party has rested under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”

We review “the disposition of a party’s request to reopen its case after the party has rested under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” -53 (Minn. 2008).

In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our role is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.”

-35 (Minn. 2005); 4 see also Dobbins, d at 511; -60 (Minn. 2008).

(quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).

This court reviews “the disposition of a party’s request to reopen its case after the party has rested under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” –53 (Minn. 2008); see also State v. Jouppis, 147 Minn. 87, 89, 179 N.W.

(quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).

“[S]tatements of third parties [to a conversation] may be admissible to provide context for the responses and admissions sought to be admitted.” (holding that police statements in an interview were admissible because they were offered not “for their truth, but rather to give context to [the defendant’s] responses and admissions on the tape”).

When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we analyze the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that, when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we analyze the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction,” was sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict (quotation omitted)).