Cited by

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.” .

(stating that “when a disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone .

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if “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 Webb, d at 430).

18 When the appellant’s conviction is based on direct evidence, the appellate court undertakes 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).

(quotation omitted).1 “[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 and alteration omitted).

When direct evidence supports an element of an offense, our review of 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 permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did .” (quotation omitted).

When the contested element is supported by direct evidence, appellate 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.’” ().

State v. Horst , - 41 (Mi nn.

When an element is supported by direct evidence, our 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 which they did.” (quotation omitted).

1 Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence depends on whether the “disputed element is sufficiently proven by direct evidence alone.”

When direct evidence supports an element of an offense, this court’s 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, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

In order to meet the plain error standard, a 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).

g whether the evidence is sufficient in a case like this one, whi ch is based on direct evidence, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Balandin , () ; see also State v. Horst , (explaining that when the State presents direct evidence on each element of the offense, “we limit our review to a painstaking analysis of the record to deter mine whether the evidence, when viewed in a

When di rect evidence supports an element of an offense, this court’s review is limited “to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evid ence, when viewed in the li ght most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (stating defendant’s comment “was direct evidence of her mens rea”).

“With respect to the substantial-right s requirement, [the defendant] bears the burden of establishing that ther e is a reasonable likelihood th at the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted ).

at 168; see also State v. Horst , (holding same).

(“[T]he remedy for an illegal search or seizure is generally limited to the suppression of illegally obtained evidence.”).

(stating that “direct evidence .

(providing that exigent circumstances can justify a warrantless entry and search of a person’s home); see also State v. Horst , d 24, 34 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that exig ent circumstances jus tified the warrantless seizure of the defendant’s cell phone).

“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).

For example, Sandven admitted to the deputy that she left the letter for sister at her parent’s house where Sandven knew sister lived, she knew the HRO was valid, and she told the deputy when questioned that she “did it” and “didn’t care.” (stating defendant’s comment “was direct evidence of her mens rea”).

We 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.”