Cited by

evidence supporting his conviction of second-degree assault.1 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.”

See State v. Griffin , (applying standard of review for circumstantial evidence in considering sufficiency of evidence of defendant’s intent).

DECISION When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, 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).

4 DECISION “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.”2

In our review, we must assume th at the jury “disbelieved any ev idence that conflicted with the verdict.”

-62 (Minn. 2016) (citations omitted).

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

See State v. Griffin , (applying standard of review for circumstantial evidence in considering sufficiency of evidence of defendant’s intent).

State v. Griffin , –64 (Minn. 2016).

Appellate courts will not overturn a verdict if a jury, “upon application of the presumption of innocence and the [s]tate’s burden of proving an offe nse beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

Appellate courts will 4 not overturn a verdict if the jury, “upon appl ication 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.”

(stating appellate courts “presume that the jury followed” a district court’s instruction).

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

“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 5 conflicted with the verdict.”

“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).

” d 257, 262 (Minn. 2016).

“The verdict will not be overturned if the [jury], 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.”

See, 9 (holding that 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 , (quotation omitted) .

D E C I S I O N “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 4 reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quot ation and citations 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.”

We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” and assume that the jury “disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” 63 (Minn. 2016).

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

d 257, 264 (Minn. 2016).

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

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).

d 257, 264 (Minn. 2016).

“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 citations omitted).

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the reco rd to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn fro m them would permit th e 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).

“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appella te 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) (quoting State v. Boldman , ).

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

-62 (Minn. 2016) (citations omitted).

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

When reviewing claims about sufficiency of the evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts a nd 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 [she] was convicted.” State v. Griffin , (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 which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).