Cited by

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.”

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the appellate court examines the record 8 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 co nvicted.” (quotation omitted).

(Spreigl evidence); ( relationship evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

7 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 considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will not 11 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.”

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.” (quotation omitted).

To evaluate 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.” State v. Griffin , (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.”

A defendant who claims evidentiary error “bears the burden of showing an error occurred and any resulting prejudice.”

“A district court’s decision to admit 11 [rule 404(b)] evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” d 257, 261 (Minn. 2016).

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 verdict.” (citing Palmer, d at 733).

7 DECISION 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 State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

In conducting this analysis, we view the evidence in the 11 light most favorable to the verdict, and assume that the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,”

When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, we carefully “examine the record to determine whether the facts and legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 10 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

To assess whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, this court “carefully examine[s] 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, 11 (quotation omitted).

To determine whether there was sufficien t 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 omitted).

10 To assess whether sufficient evidence suppo rts a conviction, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and th e 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).

We evaluate 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 jury 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) .

To determine this, we consider “whether there is a reasonable possi bility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

5 of review for the different types of evidence 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).

DECISION I. When evaluating the sufficiency of the 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.” (quotation omitted).

In examining the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he ve rdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden 10 of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of th e charged offense.” State v. Griffin , (quotation and citations omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts 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).

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 wh ich he was convicted.”

State v. Griffin , (Mi nn.

The grand jury returned an indictment charging Griffin with six offenses, including first-degree felony-murder.2 1 A full recitation of the facts underlyi ng Griffin’s conviction can be found in State v. Griffin (Griffin I), –61 (Minn. 2016).

d 257, 261 (Minn. 2016).

Second, we consider “the reasonable inferences th at might be drawn from the circumstances proved.”

“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.” State v. Griffin , d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016).

Appellate courts will not overturn a verdict if the district cour t, “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.”