Cited by

(reviewing an argument that the state failed to dis prove appellant was acting in self-defense for sufficiency of the evidence).

Appellate courts review the sufficiency of the evidence by “carefully examin[ing] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [district court] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

“The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it must be assumed that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (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.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, 6 appellate courts view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict, and [assume] that the [jury] disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

“multiple acts” of sexual contact over “an extended period of time.” When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we “carefully examine the record to 6 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, “[t]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it must be assumed that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) .

“A district court’s decision to admit Spreigl evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

“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 analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” and must assume “that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

assume[] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016).

“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 omitted).

Appellate courts will not reverse a guilty verdict if “upon application of the presumption of innocence and the [s]tate’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, [the fact -finder] 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 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 6 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.” (quotation omitted).

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

7 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.”

“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.” State v. Griffin , (quotation 1 (stating that “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family” are all factors relevant to determining w

“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 defenda nt was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin , (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 omitted).

When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, appellate courts 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).

“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 [the defendant] was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

“The denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”