Cited by

(stating that the fact-finder “is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation omitted)).

“[ T]o prove premeditation, the state must show that, after the [individual] formed the intent to kill, some appreciable time passed during which the consideration, planning, preparation or determination required by Minn. Stat. § 609.18 prior to the commission of the act took place.” (quotation omitted).

d 591, 598 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the fact-finder “is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation omitted)).

1; (stating that the “totality of the evidence may support a fi nding of 14 premeditation even if no single piece of evidence standing alone would be sufficient” (quotation omitted)).

Galvan, d at 670–71 (relying on evidence that the victim told the defendant she was leaving him and taking their children to conclude that the defendant had motive) ; (determining that evidence of the defendant’s jealousy, need for money, and altercation with his girlfriend the same day he murdered her was sufficient to show motive); (citing evidence that the defendant’s relationship with his wife had deteri

An appellate court “will n ot overturn a guilty verdict if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the [trier of fact] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

we examine the evidence as a whole.” d 591, 599 (Minn. 2012).

[,] we examine the evidence as a whole.”

See State v. Hurd , , 600 (Minn. 2012) ("[I]f motive is present, 'it can help strengthen a finding that the defendant deliberated about the killing.'

We “assume that the jury believed the stat e’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence[,]” id., and we “will not overturn a guilty verd ict if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosec ution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

We “will not overturn a guilty verdict if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a 4 reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

(noting Hurd’s efforts to avoid detection, including purchasing a bus ticket in an assumed name, washing bloody clothes, cleaning the victim’s blood from the victim’s car before abandoning it, and lying to family and police to avoid detection) (quoting Kendell, d at 606).

10 “independently examine ‘the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,’ including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quoting Anderson, d at 242).

But appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.” 3

Appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.”

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence [appellate courts] must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a [fact-finder] to reach a guilty verdict.” d 591, 598 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

n.1 (Minn. 2012) (stating that appellate courts may decline to address an appellant’s argument regarding an offense for which no conviction was entered).

The reviewing court must “assume that the [jury] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “the jury is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation 3 omitted)).

Appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.” d 591, 599 (Minn. 2012).

Appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.”

But appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.”

But appellate courts “view the circumstantial evidence as a whole, not as isolated facts.”

An appellate court reviews a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to “determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict.” 4 (Minn. 2012).