Cited by

7 When analyzing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, appellate courts review the evidence to determine whether a fact-finder “could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged” based on “the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts.” d 297, 306-07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

A conviction depends on circumstantial evidence if proof of the offense, “or a single element of the criminal offense, is based solely on circumstantial evidence.”

“The standard of review on a venue transfer challenge is whether the district court abused its discretion.”

A conviction depends on circumstantial evidence if proof of the offense, “or a single element of the criminal offense, is based solely on circumstantial evidence.”

To establish actual prejudice resulting from publicity surrounding the trial , a defendant must show that the publicity “influenced the specific jurors involved in the case.” State v. Fairbanks

On appeal from a conviction, a defendant must demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion and 5 that “he suffered actual prejudice from pretrial publicity.” d 297, 302 (Minn. 2014).

In cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence, reviewing courts apply the traditiona l standard, rather than the circumstantial- evidence standard, when an elem ent is “sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone.”

“The standard of review on a venue transfer challenge is whether the district court abused its discretion.”

See State v. Fairbanks , (“A jury is in the best position to evaluate circumstantial evidence, and its verdict is entitled to due deference.”) Affirmed.

See State v. Fairbanks , , 304 (Minn. 2014).

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, an appellate court reviews “the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Minnesota courts are committed “to insuring that the systems used are increasingly inclusive in the hope that the faces of the people in the jury room will soon mirror the faces of the people in the community at large.” (quotation omitted); ).

(explaining that in identifying the circumstances proved, we assume the jury accepted the State’s proof of the given circumstances and rejected any evidence in the record to the contrary).

(concluding that 11 months between the publication of pretrial publicity and the start of trial mitigated any prejudicial effects of 119 articles about the crime); (holding that district court acted within its discretion in denying change-of-venue

When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, we review the evidence “to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) ().

DECISION Under the traditional standard of review of sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” -07 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).