Cited by

8 from them would permit the jury to reasonab ly conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offe nse of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin , (quotation omitted).

(quotation and citations omitted).

Reviewing courts view the evidence “in 6 the light most favorable to the verdict [and assume] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (citation omitted).

When appellate courts evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, they “‘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 [or she] was convicted.’” (quoting State v. Boldman , ).

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, “courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts a nd the legitimate infere nces 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).

The verdict will not be overturned if the fact -finder, upon applicati on 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.4 (quotation and citations omitted).

(quotation and citations omitted).

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.”

In evaluating 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 offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

6 (quotation and citations omitted).

When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and “must [] assume[] th at the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” State v. Griffin

When a defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence, the defendant “bears the burden of showing an error occurred and any resul ting prejudice.” State v. Griffin , -62 (Minn. 2016) (citations omitted).

(stating that, if a district court abuses its discretion by admitting evidence, a reviewing court must determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility th at the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict”).

We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to 4 the verdict” and assume “that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant wh o claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing an error occurred and any resulting prejudice.” State v. Griffin , -62 (Mi nn.

When applying that standard, this court assumes that the jury “disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” State v. Griffin , State v. Brocks , (statin g that appellate courts “assume that the jury 5 believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence ”).

See, e.g. , State v. Griffin , , 262-63 (Minn. 2016) (affirming the denial of a mistrial motion based on an improper question by prosecutor); Bahtuoh , d at 819-20 (affirming the denial of a mistrial motion based on grand-jury testimony being read into the record); State v. Spann , , 53 (Minn. 1998) (affirming the denial of a

“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inf erences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the off ense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Griffin , , 263 (Minn. 2016).

A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of 9 showing an error occurred and any resulting prejudice.” (citation omitted).

d 257, 262 (Minn. 2016).

State v. Griffin , 1 Appellant relies on Justice Steven’s dissent in Lakeside v. Oregon for the proposition that, while jurors have a natural inclination to associate a defendan t’s silence with guilt, in circumstances where the jury has in fact overlooked the silence , giving a no-

(“It is rare for the State to establish a defe ndant’s state of mind through direct evidence.”); (“Because it is a state of mind, premeditation is generally proven through circumstantial evidence, and is often inferred from the totality of circums

A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing an error occurred and any resulting prejudice.” -62 (Minn. 2016) (citations omitted) ; see State v. Spreigl , d 167, 169 (Minn. 1965) (stating that other-acts evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a defendant committed the present offense) .

When, as here, the defendant moves for a mistrial, the correct legal standard directs the district court to grant a mistrial “if there is a reasonable probability in light of th e entirety of the trial including the mitigating effects of a cura tive instruction, that the outc ome of the trial would have been different had the incident resulting in the motion not occurred.”

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

State v. Griffin , , 261 (Minn. 2016).