Cited by

And the jury “is responsible for weighing the credibility of eyewitness testimony.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

See also SVAP III Riverdale Commons LLC v. Coon Rapids Gyms, LLC, (same); (“The day may 14 Appeals lacks the power to create a new tort in the common law, the Minnesota Court of Appeals surely lacks the power to recognize new rights under Minnesota’s Constitution.

d 413, 420 (Minn. App. 2017) (“The task of extending existing laws falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but it does not fall to this court.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

An appellate court will not disturb a verdict “[i]f the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

But in State v. Thomas, we concluded that to comply with the statute the district court need only “determine[] on the record at the time of sentencing that the offender has two or more prior convictions for violent crime.” - 6 22 (Minn. App. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd.

18, 1987); see also, e.g., SVAP III Riverdale Commons LLC v. Coon Rapids Gyms, LLC, rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

We will not disturb a verdict “[i]f the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

We will not disturb a verdict “[i]f the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (Minn. Mar.

The distr ict court declined to add this language, citing State v. Thomas , review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (Minn. Mar.

(“The jury, not the reviewing court, is responsible for weighing the credibility of eyewitness testimony; thus, the positive and uncontradicted testimony of a victim may be sufficient by itself to support a conviction.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Mar.