Cited by

To sustain a conviction, “[c]ircumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, as a whole, leads so directly 8 to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

First, we identify the circumstances proved, giving deference to “the jury ’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances as well as to the jury’s rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state.”

We first identify the circumstances proved in support of the conviction, giving deference to “the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances as well as to the jury’s rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state.”

Even in cases involving circumstantial evidence, 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.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

In these cases, the “[c]ircumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

In reviewing such a challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

“Evidence tending to show an intent to sell or distribute includes evidence as to the large 10 quantity of drugs possessed, evidence as to the manner of packaging, and other evidence.” (quotation omitted).

In reviewing such an argument, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was gui lty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

d 618, 623 (Minn. 2011).

d 618, 622 (Minn. 2011) .

We first identify the circumstances proved in support of the conviction, giving deference to “the 6 jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances as well as to the jury’s rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state.”

The jury determined the weight and credibility of this testimony, and we defer to the jury, which is “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.” State v. Hanson , (quotation omitted).

d 618, 622 (Minn. 2011).

To support a conviction, “[c]ir cumstantial evidence mu st form a complete chain that, as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the de fendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Hanson

We defer to the jury , which is “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).

-24 5 (Minn. 2011) (holding that the discovery of 12.6 grams of methamphetamine along with items commonly used for packaging and distribution was sufficient to support conviction); State v. Porte , 832 N.W .2d 303, 310 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that the recent sale of controlled substance and agreement to

State v. Hanson , d 618, 622 (Minn. 2011).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Hanson

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we view “the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , (quotations omitted).

(recognizing that juries are “gen erally in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and th us determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Hanson , d 618, 622 ( Minn. 2011).

Additionally, “[e]vidence tending to show an intent to sell or distribute includes evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed.” (quotation omitted).

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , (Mi nn.

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence , we defer to the jury’s role as fact - finder by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotations omitted).

State v. Hanson , , 622 (Minn. 2011).

We defer to the jury , which is “generally in the best position t o weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” State v. Hanson , (quotation omitted).

State v. Hanson , , 621 (Minn. 2011) (quotations omitted).