Cited by

We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , 0 (Minn. 2012) (quo tation omitted).

5 disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

8 believed the State’s witnesses and disbelie ved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

In analyzing an argument that the eviden ce 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.” (quo tation omitted).

did not testify that [Veitia] lacked permission to enter the house.” When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most f avorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

8 to the conviction, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

“We assume the jury believed the [s]tate’ s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega

We review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , 0 (Minn. 2012) (quo tation omitted).

Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Ap pellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation and citation omitted).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and d isbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

“We assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

Appellate courts “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Ortega

11 light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction” and “assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Under this traditional standard of review, we condu ct “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).

[and] assume the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelie ved any evidence to the contrary.” (citations and q uotation omitted).

Under the traditional direct-evidence standard, we limit our review to “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the convic tion, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

We generally review claims of insufficient evidence by cond ucting 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).

Under the traditional direct-evidence standard, we limit our review to “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the convic tion, was sufficient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

We will not disturb the verdict if the fact -finder, “acting with due regard for the presumption 4 of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a convi ction, this court conducts 8 “a painstaking analysis of the re cord to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a convi ction, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis o f the record to determine whe ther the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was suffi cient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

In reviewing whether a conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis o f the record to determine whe ther the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was suffi cient.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “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 d oubt, could reasonably 8 conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega

State v. Ortega , (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.” State v. Ortega

“And we will not disturb 3 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.”