Cited by

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 sufficient.” (quotation omitted).

This court will “not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with 4 due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requi rement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (Minn. showing Officer Zizzo running towards the sidewalk.

” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

” 2 To convict appellant of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the state had to prove that he knowingly possessed the firearm and is in eligible to possess a firearm.

When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was s ufficient to permit the juror s to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012); review denied (Minn. Aug.

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 guilty of the charged offense.”

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to de termine whether the evidence, wh en viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, wa s sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

We will not disturb the verdict if the fa ct-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 guilty of the charged offense.”

d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (q uotation omitted).

See State v. Ortega , , 101 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that cleaning up and disposing of evidence were efforts to evade detection and supported a finding of premeditation); State v. Leake , , 321 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that burning evidence supported finding of premeditation); State v. Lodermeier , , 398 (Minn

State v. Ortega , , 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

State v. Ortega , , 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

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

Usually, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().

Th e verdict will not be disturbed “if the [fact-finder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could r easonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.”

State v. Ortega , (quotation omitted).

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court limits its review 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 r each [their] verdict.” (quotation omitted).

urder because the evidence shows that he acted in self-defense to defend himself and his friends.1 In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “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).

Generally, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().

Appellate courts will not disturb the verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasona ble doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega