Cited by

“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).

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).

State v. Griffin , (quotation and citations omitted).

When an appellant argues that the state provided insufficient 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 omitted).

Appellate courts evaluating the sufficiency of evidence must “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 reviewing 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 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).

Griffin appealed, and we affirmed Griffin’s conviction, concluding that “the circumstances proved in this case are consistent with a reasonable inference that Griffin shot Benitez-Hernandez with an intent to kill and inconsistent with a reasonable inference that the firing of the gun was the product of accidental discharge due to being grabbed and falling.” State v. Griffin (Griffin I)

In determining whether the evidence was 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 [fact-finder] 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 reviewing 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 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.” (Minn. 2016).

Appellate courts evaluate 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.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing for 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 offence of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

ilt and that the “alternative hypothesis” offered on appeal “is nothing more than mere conjecture.” “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.” (quotation omitted).

Under this standard, the appellate court assumes that “the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

When reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, 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.” (quotation omitted).

Under this standard, we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” and assume that the fact -finder “disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016).

To evaluate 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.” 3 Gamble also argues that the traffic stop cannot be justified based on a welfare check.

“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).

ict court abused its discretion by denying his mistrial motion based on mother’s testimony about “last time we had trial.” Appellate courts review the denial of a mistrial motion for 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.”

“A mistrial should be granted only if there is a reasonable probability, in light of the entirety of the trial including the mitigating effects of a curative instruction, that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the incident resulting in the motion not occurred.”

10 could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

“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 [s]he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

9 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 evidence sustaining a criminal conviction , 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 7 the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that “[t]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict” on review of sufficiency of the evidence).

“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 offence of which he was convicted.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (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.”

“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 13 reasonable doubt of the offense of which [they were] convicted.” (quotation omitted).

A. Standard of Review To evaluate 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 omitted).

After NC’s testimony, the district court stopped the witness and instructed the jury, “You’re to disregard anything regarding Ramsey County and any shooting.” There is a “presumption that juries follow the district court’s instructions.”

If the district court erroneously admitted evidence, we “determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”