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 reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to convict in a given case, we must “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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks 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 and citation omitted).

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

15 When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, appellate courts view the evidence “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.”

“[A]ppellate cou rts 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).

4 “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.” State v. Griffin , d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotations 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, we view the evidence “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.” State v. Griffin

404(b)] 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 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 [fact -finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted).

We assess 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 [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Griffin , -75 (Minn. 2010).

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

When reviewing 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.” (quotation omitted).

d 257, 261 (Minn. 2016).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “t he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it mu st be assumed that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court generally will not overturn a guilty verdict if the jury, applying the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden to prove an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, “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.” 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 defendant ’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted) .

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to convict in a given case, appellate courts must 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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

When we review the sufficiency of direct evidence for 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.” 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 [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).

As a general matter, we must view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict, and it must be assumed that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the 6 verdict.” (citing Palmer, d at 733).

e circumstances proved are not inconsistent with innocence because “the record reflects the continued inconsistency of the complainant’s story and her own uncertainty as to what happened.” But appellate courts view the evidence “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.”

When reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, “[t]he verdict will not be overturned 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 6 found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”