Cited by

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).

Then, it 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 .” State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted) .

The reviewing court must then “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt , not 4 simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” See State v. Palmer , (quotation omitted) .

As such, we deem these claims waived, and we will not consider them unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 727, 741 (Minn. 2011) (“Claims contained in a pro se supplemental brief with no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations are deemed waived”) (quotation omitted); (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either a

“[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).

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

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

In doing so, we “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.”).

see also State v. Palmer , (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

See State v. Palmer , , 741 (concluding that claims made without argument or citation are waived).

State v. Olhausen , (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench t rials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

“We will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and a ssume that the factfinder 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).

(applying the same standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence to both bench and jury trials).

d at 362; State v. Palmer , see also State v. Fort , (concluding that burglar’s statements to victim that “if you don’t shut up, I’m going to kill you” and “now you’re going to die” verbalized the planning activity and were sufficient to prove premeditation).

We will review 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 and citations omitted).

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.”

State v. Palmer , , 734 (Minn. 2011) (quoting State v. Moore , , 361 (Minn. 1992) ).

6 –05 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Palmer , (stating that appellate courts utilize same standard of review in bench trials and jury trials for evaluating sufficiency of evidence).

nt evidence to support a verdict, Minnesota appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and rea sonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted); (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating th e sufficiency of the evidence.”).

-41 (Minn. 2011) (“Claims contained in a pro se supplemental brief with no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations are deemed waived.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

State v. Palmer , , 733 (Minn. 2011).

State v. Palmer , , 733 (Minn. 2011).

(alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted).

d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011).