Cited by

V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; d 515, 520 (Minn. 2013)

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

U.S. Const. amend V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7

“[S]ection 609.04 bars multiple co nvictions under different sec tions of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , (quotation omitted).

Furthermore, “section 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” (Mi nn.

1 (2016), “bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

Further, “s ection 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

We “review the evidence just as we would on a sufficiency challenge—in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and with all conflicts in the ev idence resolved in favor of the verdict.” see also Smith, d at 264; State v. Chavarria-Cruz

Furthermore, “s ection 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

See Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223 (1957); see also State v. Chavarria-Cruz

State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 10 (Minn. 2013).

d 515, 519 (Minn. 2013).

The supreme court has “consistently held that section 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts co mmitted during a single behaviora l incident.” -23 (Mi nn.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence tending to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “in the light most fa vorable to the verdict.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , (quotation omitted).

" State v. Chavarria-Cruz , , 519 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Leake , , 319 (Minn. 2005) ).

Instead, it must simply affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.” (quotati on omitted).

We review the sufficiency of the evidence tending to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “in the light most fa vorable to the verdict.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , (quotation omitted).

The corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case of guilt, but it must “affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial 9 degree.” (Mi nn.

The corroborating evidence need not establish a prima facie case of guilt, but it must “affirm the truth of the 8 accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.” (quotation omitted).

n.2 (Minn. 2013) (“[Defendant] concedes that ‘because [we] reversed [his] second-degree murder convictions and remanded for [a new] trial, the state had every right to retry [him] for second-degree murder.’ His concession is consistent with well-established law that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar [repros