Cited by

n.8 (Minn. App. 2019) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr 16, 2019).

In a circumstantial-evidence case, the “nature of injuries and their possible causes” testified to by a medical expert are treated as “medical ‘facts’ that a reviewing court must take as proved.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Before we analyze the state’s evidence, we note that it is outside our practice as an error-correcting court to overturn a conviction on the basis of “grave doubt.” n.8 (Minn. App. 2019) (explaining that the “grave doubts” argument falls under the purview of the supreme court), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“[W]e will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

679-80 (Minn. App. 2019) (looking to canons of construction to interpret an ambiguous sentencing guideline in accordance with commission’s intent), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

In support of his argument that the June 2021 amended sentencing order in the fifth- degree assault case controls, rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

The circumstances proved must, as a whole, be consistent with guilt and “inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“But we will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(reversing and remanding for resentencing with instructions to use a criminal-history score of one), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the evidence “to determine whether the facts in the record 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 [s] he was convicted.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

at 202 (quotation and citation omitted); (reversing and remanding fo r resentencing with instructions to use correct criminal-history score), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

See State v. Stewart , 80 (Minn. App. 2019) (reversing and remanding for resentencing with instructions to use the correct criminal-history score), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“[W]hen a jury is presented with conflicting medical testimony about the nature of injuries and their possible causes, we assume the jury believed the expert testimony that is most consistent with its verdict.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

1992) (discussing in admissible psychiatric opinion on defendant’s criminal intent); State v. DeWald , (determining whether officer offered a legal or factual conclusion); (“An expert witness may not offer an opinion as 9 to a defendant’s intent.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.

DECISION When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the record to determine “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them” permit a finder of fact “ to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 668, 673 (Minn. App. 2019) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.

See, n.6 (Minn. 2006); n.8 (Minn. App. 2019), review denied (Minn. Apr.

State v. Stewart , (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

notes that “[his] North Carolina sentence was in fact imposed and an imposed number range was announced.” Finley further argues that “because it is impossible for the state to show that he will actually serve a sentence longer than one year,” “the state cannot prove that [he] received a sentence that in Minnesota would qualify as a felony-level sentence.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the facts in the record 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), review denied (Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

“But we will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.