Cited by

See, (“We are ‘an error-correcting court’ .

As the state concedes, the Minnesota Supreme Court has long treated single-subject claims as justiciabl e and “it is not the role of this court to abolish established judicial precedent.” State v. McCormick , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“A motion for a directed verdict presents the district court with a question of law.” (citing M.W.

We are an error correcting court whose “role is to find the law, to state it and to apply it to the facts.” State v. McCormick , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

6 “A motion for acquittal is ‘procedurally equivalent to a motion for a directed verdict.’” (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported 5 by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 29, 40 (Minn. 2024) (concluding that “light rail station videos provide direct evidence of what they show”); (concluding that a reenactment video was direct evidence of what it showed), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (citation omitted).

See Segura, d at 169 (acknowledging the difficulties on a victim’s family, the community, and the court in reversing and remanding a defendant’s murder and kidnapping convictions); (describing the court of appeals as “an error-correcting court,” which is limited to finding the law and applying it to the facts (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 498, 507 (Minn. App. 2013) (concluding that “there was direct evidence on the issue of objective gross negligence” that, “when viewed in the light most favorable to the state, would permit the jury to evaluate whether [the appellant’s conduct] would constitute a gross deviation from an objective standard of care”), rev

d 498, 510 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating the court of appeals is an error -correcting court and will make new law only when there are no statutory or judicial precedents), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Although we have never expressly considered the issue of whether a video is direct or circumstantial evidence of what it shows, rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that the 6 defendant’s reenactment video was direct evidence of what the defendant did), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that reenactment video is direct evidence of defendant’s actions), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(describing the court of appeals as “an error-correcting court,” which is limited to finding the law and applying it to the facts (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that defendant’s reenactment video was direct evidence of what defendant did) .

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they are “either manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that a video of the offense constituted direct evidence for the purpose of sufficiency), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Frost, d at 319; d 498, 507 (Minn. App. 2013) , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that a reenactment video is direct evidence of a defendant’s actions), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(applying circumstantial evidence standard to review whether sufficient evidence supported element of causation in culpable negligence manslaughter conviction).

(stating that we are error-correcting court that does not try case de novo)

25, 2001); review denied (Minn. Oct.

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”) ; accord State v. McCormick , (stating this court is “an 2 In briefing and oral argument to this court, Mechtel emphasiz es that defense counsel affirmatively misadvised him about the applicable sentencing guidelines.

1 The parties dispute the applicability of State v. McCormick, in which we stated that there was sufficient direct evidence to support a jury’s finding of objective gross negligence because statements and a reenactment video “would permit the jury to evaluate whether [the conduct] would constitute a gross deviation from an objective standard of care.” review denied (Minn. Oct.

( review denied (Minn. Oct.

See, (criminal vehicular homicide); (first -degree murder); State v. McCormick , d 498, 507 -08 (Minn. App. 2013) (second -degree manslaughter), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

oncerning direct and circumstantial evidence to the effect that “ [t]he law does not prefer one form of evidence over the other.” 10 Minnesota Practice , CRIMJIG 3.05 (Supp. 2018); see Harris , d at 603 -11 D-2 (Lillehaug, J., dissenting) (explaining that, despite this admonition to juries, “on appellate review, we do not follow that admonition”); n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing the benefit s that would flow from a complete and robust explanation to juries of the proper framework for analyzing

(explaining that, as an error-correcting court, our role is to find the law, to state it, and to apply it to the facts, and only when there are no statutory or judicial precede nts will we make new law), review denied (Minn. Oct.

State v. McCormick , review denied (Minn. Oct.

See State v. McCormick , , 510 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

A [fact- finder] is permitted to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions.” State v. Johnson , (citation omitted); review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

State v. McCormick , review denied (Minn. Oct.

(“[A]ppeal of the denial of [a] posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal .