Cited by

(applying the direct-evidence standard because the direct evidence presented by the state was sufficient by itself to support the disputed element).

(“The ‘admissions’ of the defendant constituted direct and not circumstantial evidence.”); d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (determining that defendant’s statement— “I want him dead”— was direct evidence).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully 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).

4 reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

See Harris, d at 599 (“[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)); (stating that “when a disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone .

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).

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).

(citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)).

When considering a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge, we carefully 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).

When an element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, this court’s review is limited to an “analysis of the record to determ ine 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 an element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, our review is limited “to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”

Witness testimony “is direct evidence when it reflects a witness’s personal 6 observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences.”

DECISION When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully 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).

Under this standard, Campbell has the burden to show “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”

A district court’s general witness-credib ility instruction may include a witness’s “interest or lack of interest in the outcome of [the] case” and whether each witness had “something to gain or lose.” (quotations omitted).

See Harris, d at 599 (“[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)); (stating that “when a disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone .

In conducting our review, we undertake 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 [it] did.” (quotation omitted).

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.” .

W e evaluate the sufficiency of direct evidence presented to support a conviction by conducting “a painstaking analysis of the record 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.” (quotation omitted).

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.” State v. Horst , (quotation omitted).

Bigbear bears the burden of show ing “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’ s verdict.” State v. Horst , (quotation omitted) .

We will conclude that an alleged error violated a defendant’s substantial rights if there “is a 12 reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

7 review “t he 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 5 v. Horst, (quotation omitted).

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.” State v. Horst

When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully review 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 t he verdict which [it] did.” (quotation omitted).

“With respect to the substantial -rights requirement, [appellant] 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).

Because we conclude here that, even if there was an error, it did not impact Carter’s substantial rights and we need not address whether the district court erred.1 An error impacts a defendant’s substantial rights only 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).

We find support for this conclusion in State v. Horst, which repeated that evidence is direct when it “reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences.”