Cited by

Under this standard, reviewing courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We carefully examine “the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

“[ W]e carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We carefully examine “the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “view the prosecutor’s statements as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence to determine whether reversible error has occurred.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that an appellate court need not provide a detailed discussion of pro se claims that lack merit).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We view a prosecutor’s statements “as a whole, rather than just selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence to determine whether reversible error has occurred.” (quotation omitted).

This court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

State v. Waiters (Waiters I), see also Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(3) (2022) (felony murder); Minn. Stat. § 609.17 (2024) (attempt crimes).

This court “carefully examines the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a 7 reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts 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).

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from 5 them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which [the defendant] was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

d 895, 902 (Minn. 2019) (“When our careful review of each claim raised in a pro se supplemental brief leads us to conclude that the claims are without merit, we have not included a detailed discussion of each claim in our opinion.”); (“After carefully considering each

that was plain.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which [s] he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we carefully examine “the record to determine whether the facts 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).

We evaluate sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges by carefully examining the record to consider whether “the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

rizes her version of events as “unreliable, inconsistent and not supported by the facts in the record.” In evaluating sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenges, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the 32 legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which [they were] convicted.” (quotation omitted).

We “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

(stating that reviewing court need not include detailed discussion of pro se claims that lack merit).

Appellate courts do not disturb the verdict if the jury “upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

(quotation and alteration omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” , 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, “we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [factfinder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).