Cited by

(stating that “the court will accept a concession .

And “[i]n cases where death resulted from self-defense, a defendant must have reasonably feared that he was threatened with great bodily harm or death and that the use of force to prevent that harm was reasonable.” Id.; d 102, 108 (Minn. 2012) (“To establish a self-defense claim, appellant must establish that he reasonably feared great bodily harm or death and that the use of force to prevent such harm was reasonable.”).

20 “To establish prejudice a defendant must show that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the disputed evidence had been produced.”

When considering a sufficiency- of-the-evidence challenge, “ we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt[.]”

When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(“[C]ircumstances must be evaluated as a part of the whole evidentiary picture.”).

Appellate courts review the sufficiency of the evidence by “carefully examin[ing] the record to determine whether the facts 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.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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. Boldman

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” (Minn .

When considering a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

When evaluating a claim of in sufficient evidence, this cour t “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts 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.”

We review whether the state presented sufficient evidence by “carefully examin[ing] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

ficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court “‘carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact [-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.’” ( 106 (Minn. 2012)).

When evaluating a clai m of insufficient evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] th e record to determine whethe r the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit th e jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact -finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

n evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appella te courts ‘carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.’” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Boldman , ).

When e valuating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” d 102, 106 (Minn. 2012).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.” d 102, 106 (Minn. 2012).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.”

A conviction is not to be overturned based on “mere conjecture.”

ts evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, they “‘carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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 [or she] was convicted.’” (quoting State v. Boldman , ).

d 102, 107 (Minn. 2012).

State v. Boldman , , 106 (Minn. 2012).

Id.; (“Generally, a defendant must 8 show not only a discovery violation, but also prejudice as a result of the discovery violation before a new trial will be ordered.”).

Thus, appellant must “show not only a discovery violation, but also prejudice as a result of the discovery violation before a new trial will be ordered.”

oduct of accidental discharge due to being grabbed and falling.” When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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.”

d 102, 109 (Minn. 2012).

Ortega, d at 100; Palmer, d at 733