Cited by

DECISION Upon review of a claim of insufficient evidence, this court reviews 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 their verdict.” (noting appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).

We follow a two-step process in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and “the same standard of review [applies to] bench trials and [to] 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.”

The reviewing court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that a court may sua sponte consider a lesser-included offense at a bench trial even over the defendant’s objection); (holding that the court’s failure to sua sponte consider a lesser-included offense at a bench trial was not reversible error).

(stating that pro se argument was meritless because it was unsupported by the record and devoid of legal authority); (stating that reviewing court may decline to address pro se claims that lack argument and citation to legal authority or the record unless prejudicial error is obvious).

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

An appellate court uses “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.”

5(a) , if they “ intentionally provide[] f alse information to a corrections agent, law enforcement authority, or the bureau.” “We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

The second step is to “determine whether the circumstances proved are ‘consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.’” (quoting Andersen, d at 330).

–18 (Minn. 1980) (same); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same), abrogated on other grounds, (same); d 315, 321–22 (Minn. 2003) (same); State v. Harris , , 850 (Minn. 2006) (same); Zumberge, d at 698 (same).

dence of the nature of the killing, which the district court considered to be “some of the strongest evidence supporting a finding of premeditation.” Evidence related to the nature of the killin g includes “the number of wounds inflicted, infliction of wounds to vital areas, infliction of gunshot wounds from close range, [and] passage of time between infliction of wounds.” State v. Palmer , , 736 (Minn. 2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To be sufficient, th e state’s evidence must establish that “the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsiste nt with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

“We will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder 5 disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

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

We “use the same standa rd of review in bench trials and in jury 5 trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

16, 2019); see State v. Palmer , (explaining that the same standard 3 applies to bench trials and jury trials).

In reviewing the evidence, we “assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with th[e] verdict.” State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted).

“We will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Palmer , (“Claims contained in a pro se supplement al brief with no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations are deemed waived.” (quotation omitted)); (deeming waived argument raised for the first time in reply brief and not r

(noting that courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).

Second, the reviewing court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” See State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted).

“Claims contained in a pro se supplemental brief with ‘no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations’ are deemed waived.” (d 713, 719-20 (Minn. 2002)).

“We use the same 9 standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

next asserts that the district court’s certification decision did not turn on his risk to public safety but on the fact that he “had turned 21.” He contends that the state should have been required to present “uncontradicted facts that [he] will re-offend if he is no longer under delinquency jurisdiction,” citing State v. Palmer

Then, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any r ational hypothesis except that of guilt.” See State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted).

Then, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).