Cited by

7 viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict that [it] did.” (); (providing that the same standard of review is applicable for assessing sufficiency of the evidence for court trials as jury trials).

-40 (Minn. 2016) (contrasting the “traditional” direct and circumstantial-evidence analyses for sufficiency of the evidence).

Direct evidence includes witness testimony “when it reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of direct evidence to prove an element of an offense, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which they did.”

Under the direct evidence standard of review, an appellate court’s review is limited “to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict [that] they did.” (quotation omitted).

“With respect to the substantial- rights requirement, [the defendant] bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also Griller, d at 741 (describing defendant’s burden as a “heavy” one).

Under this standard, “we limit our review to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [factfinder] to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

-40 (Minn. 2016); (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).

“In general, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable in the absence of a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirement.”

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)

(relying on statement, “I want him dead,” as direct evidence of mens rea).

Witness testimony “is direct evidence when it reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences.”

Under the direct-evidence standard, “we limit our review to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit 7 the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted); see, (stating that, for murder conviction, defendant’s statement, “‘I want him dead,’ was direct evidence of her mens rea”).

United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1972)

(observing that witness testimony “is direct evidence when it reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences”).

We review an element proven by direct evidence “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” Williams, d at 74 ().

Under that standard, the reviewing court performs “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Horst , , 40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate review is limited to a careful review of the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jur[y] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” (quotation omitted).

To satisfy the substantial-rights prong of the plain- error test, Ambuehl bears the burden to establish that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

This requires “a painstaking analysis of the record to 7 determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient.” (quotation omitted).