Cited by

In reviewing the evidence presented, 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).

To evaluate 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.” (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).

red for first-degree assault—to intentionally inflict bodily injury.” When reviewing a claim of insufficient 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).

In 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 [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts 5 “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact[-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

3 he was convicted.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

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

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 [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

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 th e factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

submit to a test, and therefore he “never refused to take a test.” 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 [jury] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

18 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.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, the reviewing court “carefully examine[s] 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).

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 8 permit the factfinder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

When evaluating a claim concerning 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.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

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.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this c ourt carefully examines the record “to determine whether the facts and the legitimate infere nces 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.” d 895, 900 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

d 895, 901 (Minn. 2019).

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evid ence, appellate 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).

State v. Waiters , (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 fact[-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

In evalua ting 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).

dard of review Under the traditional standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, reviewing courts “carefully ex amine the record to determin e 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 a nd 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).

In considering the sufficiency of the direct evidence, we carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from those facts “would permit the [fact -finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Waiters

To evaluate 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 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).

To evaluate 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 factfinder 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 evid ence, reviewing courts “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts a nd 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 ju ry 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).

An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious,” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted) , or contrary to caselaw or standards of conduct.

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

To evaluate the sufficien cy of the evidence, appellate 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).

An error is plain if it is “clear or obvious.” State v. Waiters , (quotations omitted).

In reviewing alleged misconduct, we “view the prosecutor’s statem ents 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.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, 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.” State v. Waiters , (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court carefully examines the record “to de termine 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 consider a prosecutor’s closing argument in its entirety rather than focusing on “selective phrases or remarks that may be taken out of context or given undue prominence.” (quotation omitted).

e underlying his conviction for first-degree assault.1 To evaluate 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 [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).

To evaluate 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 factfinder to reaso nably 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).

When evaluating a claim concerning the su fficiency of circumstantial evidence, “we carefully examine the record to determine whether the fa cts 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.” (quo tation omitted).

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, this court “‘carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the fact [-]finder to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.’” ( 106 (Minn. 2012)).

When evaluating a claim of insufficien cy of the evidence, appellate 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).

“When a defendant alleges unobjected -to prosecutorial misconduct, we apply a modified plain -error standard that requires the defendant to show an error was made that was plain.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“When evaluating the sufficien cy 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 c onclude that the de fendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation and alteration omitted).