Cited by

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

(quotations and citations omitted).

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.”

“[T]he same standard of review [is used] in both bench and jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” .

(noti ng that appellate court defers to fact- finder’s credibility determinations).

“A finding of fact is not 4 clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evid ence 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.” (qu otation omitted)); Andersen, d at 329 (deferring to jury on weight and believabilit

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

State v. Barshaw , , 363 (Minn. 2016).

See State v. Barshaw , (“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)).

Intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and acts in light of the totality of the circumstances, State v. Cooper , “and the events leading up to and immediately following the crime,”

This court “use[s] t he same standard of review in both bench and jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”

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

the defendant’s conduct, the nature of the assault, and the events leading up to and immediately following the crime.”

(“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.’ ” ().

“viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assuming that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict,” we conclude that the evidence is sufficient in this case because the above-described “circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted) (describing standard of review for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence).

Appellate courts “assum[e] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.”

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

(discussing planning, activity, motive, and nature of killing); (discussing defendant’s actions before and after the murder).

On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we undertake a painstaking review of the record, and review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (alteration in original) (quotation and citation omitted).

(identifying planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing as relevant to premeditation); (same); Leake, d at 321 (identifying the defendant’s actions before and after the murder as relevant to premeditation).