Cited by

State v. Petersen , -7 (Minn. 2018)

Appellate courts “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.”

At this step, appellate courts “examine independently the reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).

At this stage, we “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.”

Because a finding of premeditation does not require a specific period of time for deliberation, premeditation can occur when a person makes a decision shortly before acting on it

to the jury’s acceptance of the State’s evidence and its rejection of any evidence in the record that is inconsistent with the circumstances proved by the State.” Id.; (explaining that, “[i]n identifying the circumstances proved,” appellate courts “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict[,]” “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict[,] and assume that the jury belie

(noting that, because jury evaluates credibility of evidence, appellate courts view conflicting evidence in light most favorable to verdict when identifying circumstances proved).