Cited by

(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).

Under the substantial-rights prong, Schertner “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).

An error affects the defendant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when the defendant establishes 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).

(stating that “when a disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone, as it is here, it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial- evidence standard, that governs ”).

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.”

If the state relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence to prove a disputed element, a reviewing court considers whether the element “is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone.” Jones, d at 500 ().

Witness testimony may serve as 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.” (applying direct evidence standard of review for eyewitness testifying to defendant’s alcohol consumption and impaired driving); (stating that direct evidence does not become circumsta

When a conviction is based on direct 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 jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial- evidence standard, that governs.” State v. Horst

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

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

If these prongs are met, then an appellate court will “consider whether reversal is required to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.”

When the state supports an element with direct evidence, we painstakingly review “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).

(stating that “when a disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone, as it is here, it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial -evidence standard, that governs ”).

(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”).

Therefore, appellate review of the determination that appellant’s acts were not reasonable on that evidence 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 [allow] the jurors to reach the verdict they did.”

right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed”); see also State v. Horst , -31 (Minn. 2016) (describing when Miranda warnings are required).

“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) 17 Admission of NC’s statement regarding a shooting with Ramsey County police was plain error.

When a conviction is supported by direct evidence, “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 jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

When determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury’s finding, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when 7 viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

it is the traditional standard, rather than the circumstantial-evidence standard, that governs.” Jones, d at 500 (

(quotation omitted); State v. Horst , .

(concluding that state proved defendant’s intent to kill victim because it presented evidence of defendant’s statements to other individuals stating that she wanted victim dead).