Cited by

When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Standard of Review When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact -finder] to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

DECISION When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact- finder] to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

4 ANALYSIS When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Under our applicable standard of review, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted); (applying the same standard in the juvenile-delinquency context).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

reasonable doubt that he committed an “assault” or used “a dangerous weapon.” When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

We discern ambiguity in a statute “only if, as applied to the facts of the particular case, [the words of the statute are] susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (quoting Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC, ) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

-61 (Minn. 2018) (describing our review of direct evidence as “painstaking” (quotation omitted)); (describing our review of circumstantial evidence as “heightened”).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

In such case s, “ ‘statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitt ed.’ ” ().

When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State , (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court carefully reviews the record “to determine w hether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State , -61 (M inn.

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence an d reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its v erdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court ordinarily conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” –61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. In considerin g a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable in ferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State , -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State , -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

–61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

cumstantial evidence on the intent element was insufficient to convict.” This court’s review of a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge is limited to “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient 7 to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficien t evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasona ble inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. Sufficiency of the evidence When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court ordinarily conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonab le inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” –61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted) .

D E C I S I O N We address a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction by carefully reviewing the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State , -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted) .

When the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018).

Lapenotiere v. State , , 360-61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Lapenotiere v. State , , 357 (Minn. 2018).

An appellate court examining a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge “conduct [s] a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” -61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Sufficiency of evidence This court’s review of a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge is limited to “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” –61 (Minn. 10 2018) (quotation omitted).