Cited by

We will sustain a conviction if “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole” are “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

(“In determining whether the evidence is sufficient, we defer to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and ‘assume that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.’ ” ().

A reviewing court will not disturb the jury’s verdict if the jury, “upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

We carefully review the record “to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.”

An appellate court examining the sufficiency of the evidence “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 206, 223 (Minn. 2015), cert.

We will sustain a conviction if “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole” are “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

(viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence).

cert denied, 136 S. Ct. 509 (2015).

Under that standard, “[appellate courts] carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” cert.

“When evaluating whether the evidence is sufficient, [appellate courts] carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” reh’g denied (June 15, 2015), cert.

We use the same standard of review in both bench and jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “view[ing] the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assum[ing] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

We are disinclined “to impute knowledge among personnel from organizationally distinct entities.” n.2 (Minn. 2015) (declining to impute knowledge among staff of county jail, city police department, and state bureau of criminal apprehension for purposes of waiver of Miranda rights).

An appellate court examining the sufficiency of the evidence “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” cert denied, 136 S. Ct. 509 (2015).

9 “When evaluating whether the evidence is sufficient, [appellate courts] carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” cert.

d 206, 213 (Minn. 2015) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602).

d 206, 223 (Minn. 2015), cert.

“The verdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”