Cited by

Appellate courts will thus affirm “if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the [s] tate’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, we “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 de fendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

If the State relies solely “on circumstantial evidence to prove the element of intent, we use a two-step test to determine whether the State presented sufficient evidence of intent.”

6 Under the direct-evidence standard of review, 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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

“ 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.”

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, we “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.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted) .

“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted); see also State v. Palmer , (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evalu

District courts also have considerable discretion in denying a mistrial motion because the judge is best suited to “determine whether an error is sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial.”

n.4 (Minn. 2022) (rejecting an argument attacking a witness’s credibility as “unavailing” under this standard of review).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “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.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted).

-62 (Minn. 2016) (Spreigl evidence); d 271, 282 (Minn. 2025) (juror disqualification).

Appellate courts review the denial of a mistrial motion for an abuse of discretion because “[t]he trial judge is in the best position to determine whether an error is sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial or whether another remedy is appropriate.”

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we “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.” (quotation omitted).

King cites two cases to support her argument:

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from 4 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 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we 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.” (quotation omitted).

(“It is rare for the State to establish a defendant’s state of mind through direct evidence.”).

6 beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we “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.” (quotation omitted).

To do so, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

4 When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

5 In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we “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.” (quotation omitted).

“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” (quotation and citations omitted).

(quotation and citations omitted).