Cited by

7 viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict that [it] did.” (); (providing that the same standard of review is applicable for assessing sufficiency of the evidence for court trials as jury trials).

at 40 (quotation omitted); d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011) (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).

“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

y of the evidence, appellate courts 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 of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted); see also State v. Palmer , (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the ev

We assume that the jury “disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

We “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Palmer

nce, this court reviews the evidence presented at trial “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant wa s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).

We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).

Generally, a victim’s 4 Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).

Though an inference inconsistent with guilt need not be the most likely inference, appellate courts “will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone,”

An appellate court uses “the same standard of review in [court] trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).

Minnesota appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“The verdict will not be overturned if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a 5 reasonable doubt, the factfinder could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

(stating we do not consider arguments lacking a citation to support legal authority).

Standard of Review and Applicable Law Appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

2 When evaluating whether a conviction fails for insufficient evidence, “[appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials.”

On the issue of premeditation, we have held that “shooting a prone victim” leads to an inference of premeditation, “evidence showing that the defendant inflicted wounds to the victim’s vital organs may support an inference of premeditation,” “[a] single shot squarely in the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took c

“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”