Cited by

(concluding that the defendant “conceal[ing] [the victim]’s body” supported a finding of premeditation); (concluding that the defendant’s “refus[al] to call the police” supported a finding of premeditation); (concluding that burning the victim’s body was an “effort[] to hide” the body and strongly supported that the defendant premeditated the killing)

When considering an insufficient-evidence claim, this court analyzes the record to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 4 conviction, was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.1

Our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts engage in “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, we undertake “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

The evidence is reviewed “in the light most favorable to the conviction.” (quotation omitted).

5 In analyzing an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, this court ordinarily undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

An appellate court reviews the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume[s] the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

“And we will not disturb the verdict if the jury, 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 guilty of the charged offense.”

We will affirm a conviction 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 wa s guilty of the charged offense.”

In analyzing an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, this court undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

In doing so, this court “assume[s] the jury believed the [s]tate’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

In analyzing an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, this court ordinarily undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

In analyzing an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, this court ordinarily undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether 5 the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

We will not overturn a verdict if the district court, “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the 7 defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”

When direct evidence establishes an element of the crime, we painstakingly review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().

5 In analyzing an argument that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, this court ordinarily undertakes “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

“[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, 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 guilty of the charged offense.” (citation omitted).

D-2 (); (“If the jury could reasonably conclude a defendant had been proven guilty, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this co