Cited by

State v. Hanson , , 621 (Minn. 2011) ; State v. Pendleton , , 909 (Minn. 2009).

In assessing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court views “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. 7 Hanson, (quotations omitted).

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 c onclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , (quotations omitted).

“[W]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine w hether 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).

4 State v. Hanson , (quotations omitted).

(requiring conviction to be affirmed despite a possible innocent explanation if, under the circumstances proved, “there are no other reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt”).

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court “view[s] 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 4 the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotations omitted).

20, 2015) , and therefore “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the [adjudication of guilt] to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact -finder] to reasonably 3 conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , (quotation s omitted).

We will not disturb the verdict if the fact -finder, “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence ” and the requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted).

as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

(“Evidence tending to show an intent to sell or distribute includes evidence as to the large quantity of drugs possessed .

Even in 10 cases involving circumstantial evidence, the factfinder 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.’ ” ().

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

But “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.” (quotations omitted).

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.”

8 exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

See, e.g., Porte, d at 309; review denied (Minn. Sept.

“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.”