Cited by

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (M inn.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(“The Confrontation Clause is satisfied by a declarant’s appearance at trial for cross-examination.”).

D E C I S I O N I. Sufficiency of the evidence When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Holliday , (quotation omitted).

“[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross- examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” (quotation omitted).

Sufficiency of evidence When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

2(e), in a case tried without a jury, “[i]f the court omits a finding on any issue of fact essential to sustain the general finding [of guilty], it must be deemed to have made a finding consistent with the general finding.” -63 (Minn. 2008) (stating that district court is “deemed to have made a specific finding of premeditation in light of its conclusion of law that appellant acted with premeditation and its general finding that appellant is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder”).

With regard to premeditation, “the state must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place.”

“[T]he appellant has the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (quotation omitted).

-01 (Minn. 2012); d 556, 560, 563-64 (Minn. 2008) (characterizing the fact that the defendant “ran [] across 12 the [] street .

(stating that “the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is 2 Because we conclude that the post-buy recordings meet the requirements for admission under rule 807, we do not decide whether they also qualify as present-sense impr

See Cruz-Ramirez, d at 501, 506–07 (affirming attempted first-degree murder convictions based on transferred- intent doctrine); 562–64 (Minn. 2008) (affirming attempted first-degree murder conviction based on transferred-intent doctrine); –10, 912, 914–15 (Minn. App. 2013) (affirming attempted second-degree murder convictions and rejecting contention that “there can be no transferred intent from t

n.3 (Minn. 2008) (concluding appellant’s first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder convictions were not reversible based on the district court’s incorrect statement of the standard for premeditation because the evidence supported the court’s finding of premeditation under the correct standard); Kornbe

7 2(e); –63 (Minn. 2008) (deeming district court to have found premeditation in light of, inter alia, its general finding of guilt of first- degree premeditated murder); (quoting rule 26.01, subdivision 2, and concluding that evidence in trial without jury was suffici

–63 (Minn. 2008) (inferring specific finding of premeditation based on general finding of guilt).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, this court will “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).