Cited by

A reviewing court will not disturb a 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.”

“[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.” (d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004)).2 2 In his pro se supplemental brief, Young contends that his conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

Appellate courts undertake “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 [fact- finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence involves “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).

The verdict will not be disturbed “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.”

In conducting this “painstaking analysis of the record,” appellate courts view 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).

“[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.” 5 (-77 (Minn. 2004)).