Cited by

The second step is to “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved; this includes inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

“We give great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not set them aside unless clearly erroneous.”

In such cases, “the circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

As a factual finding, the district court’s age finding must be given “great deference” and may not be set aside “unless clearly erroneous.”

Both the United States Supreme Court and our court have recognized that “in some situations government interference with the confidential relationship between a defendant and his counsel may implicate the constitutional right to counsel.” (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)).

d 211, 224 (Minn. 2010) (holding that “[a]lthough the warrant application here misstates the location where the taxicab dropped the man and woman off, [nothing] in the record before us suggest[s] that the misstatement was deliberately or recklessly made or that the precise location of their drop off was material to establishing probable cause”); - 29 (Minn. 2010) (stating, in a case where law enforcement made incorrect statements about the weapons owned by defendant, that “[w]hile greater care i

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, based on the entire record, appellate courts are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

(granting great deference to a jury’s findings of fact and holding that appellate courts shall not set those findings aside unless they are clearly erroneous).

“Findings of 11 fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

We are mindful that we must review the circumstantial evidence “on the whole” instead of “break[ing] the evidence into discrete pieces.”

d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” see also In re Civ.

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” (citation omitted).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

The second step is to “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved; this includes inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

not a constitutional right.”

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, based on the entire record, “we are 7 left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

A factual finding is clearly erroneous only when, after reviewing all the evidence, “ we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

To prevail, the defendant must show that the affiant “deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth” and “the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“We give great deference to a [postconviction] court’s findings of fact and will not set them aside unless clearly erroneous.”

Although we defer to the jury in determining the circumstances proved, we give “no deference to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” –30 (Minn. 2010) 11 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(Andersen II).3 To persuade us otherwise, Braker points to his psychosexual evaluations and two letters from his outpatient sex-offender treatment to verify that he was willing to admit to multiple acts of criminal sexual conduct.

Under the second step of the circumstantial -evidence standard, this court must “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).

“Juries are generally 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.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Andersen , (observing that factual findings will not be set aside “unless clearly erroneous”).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” ; see also In re Commitment of Kenney , (stating that, on review for clear error, the “appellate court is not to weigh, reweigh, or inherently reweigh the evidence,” but must consider the evidence “only as is necessary to determine beyond question that it reasonab