Cited by

2 To support a conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd.

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

(waiving issue when it was n ot 9 supported by citation to legal authority); (issues deemed waived because they were not adequately argued or briefed), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1995).

See State v. Palmer , (ruling that appellant waived ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims by failing to include in the appellate brief “argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations” and prejudicial error was not obvious); State v. Krosch , d 17 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (deeming

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

ge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, [the fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted); (stating that same standard of review applies in bench trials and in jury trials when evaluating suff iciency of the evidence).

3 “[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

see 4 also State v. Palmer , ( setting for th standard for reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence).

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

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

(quotations and citations omitted).

This 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.”

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the 2 sufficiency of the evidence.”

4 (quotations and citations omitted).

e to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, [the fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense[s] charged.” (quotation omitted); (stating that same standard of review applies in bench trials and in jury trials when evaluating sufficiency of the evidence).

(holding that evidence of prior threats may establish motive and premeditation); (same).

(quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).

3 the record 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.” (quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).

DECISION “[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.”

We use the same standard of review in both bench and jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “view[ing] the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assum[ing] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”