Cited by

As Berry now concedes: “Baugh was shot three times, including once from point-blank range in the temple, leaving little doubt that her killing—if not premeditated—was intentional.” –64 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that intent to kill can be inferred from planning activity and the nature of the killing).

at 600; 363 (Minn. 2016) (stating that, after a bench trial, we defer to the district court’s assessment of “the credibility of the evidence” in establishing circumstances proved (quotation omitted)).

Harris, d at 600; 363 (Minn. 2016) (stating that, after a bench trial, we defer to the district court’s assessment of “the credibility of the evidence” in establishing circumstances proved (quotation omitted)).

7 reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

aughter’s] answers.”7 The state counters that the video interview “was admitted as substantive evidence” and that any argument about how the social worker asked the questions during the interview “goes to the weight of the evidence.” The state argues that this court “must defer to the jury’s determination that [daughter’s] statements during the interview were credible.” (deferring to the factfinder’s credibility determinations when analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence).

2(a) [(2014)]2, assault includes ‘an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.’” - 67 110 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.06 (2015) states “assault” may be defined by either assault-fear under CRIMJIG 13.01, assault-harm under CRIMJIG 13.02, or both.

2(a), assault includes ‘an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death.’” –67 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd.

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

Appellate courts “defer to the fact- finder’s credibility determinations and assume that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“In determining whether the evidence is sufficient, [this court] defer[s] to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and assume[s] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted 9 with the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(“The witness did make some 7 prior statements which were not consistent with her testimony at trial.

In so doing, “we defer to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and assume that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

This requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two- step analysis.” State v. Barshaw

(stating that an appellate court defers to the jury because the jury is “generally in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation omitted)).

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” State v. Barshaw

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”

(“In determining whether the evidence is sufficient, we defer to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and assume that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).

The circumstantial-evidence standard requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.” State v. Barshaw

This standard requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.” State v. Barshaw , .

See, (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”); (“[W]e review a postconviction court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and do not reverse those determinations unles

The rational hypothesis standard requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.”

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supporte d by the evidence as a whole.”

Such circumstances include “the defendant’s conduct, the nature of the assault, and the events leading up to and immediately following the crime.” d 356, 367 (Minn. 2016 ).

The ci rcumstantial-evidence standard requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.” (citation omitted).

The circum stantial-evidence standard requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.”

The circumstantial -evidence standard of review requires a “review [of] the sufficiency of the evidence using a two -step analysis.” State v. Barshaw

A factual finding “is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” d 356, 366 (Minn. 2016).

State v. Barshaw , (quotations omitted).

(“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

In applying the circumstantial-evidence standard, “we review the sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step analysis.”