Cited by

7 (Minn. 2004) (“[T]he district court ’s findings that Fields engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the unavailability of Johnson and that the intentional wrongful conduct actually did procure the una vailability of Johnson, 10 were not clearly erroneous .”); State v. Her

See id.; -48 (Minn. 2004); 909 (Minn. 1997).

An out-of-court statement may be admitted as non-hearsay pursuant to rule 80l(d)(l)(B) if the district court makes a threshold determination that the witness's credibility has been challenged, review denied (Minn. Feb.

-48 (Minn. 2004); review denied (Minn. Feb.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, this court analyzes the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the convicti on, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().

In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’ s credibility has been challenged and whether the prior statement would “bolster the witness’ [s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’s credibility that was challenged.” State v. Fields , (quotation omitted).

State v. Fields , -48 (Minn. 2004) (internal quotation omitted).

“A police officer testifying in a criminal case generally may not, under the guise of explaining how an investigation fo cused on the defendant, relat e hearsay statements of others.” ().

In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’s credibility has been challenged and whether the prior statement would “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” -48 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

In considering whether to admit a prior consistent statement, the district court determines whether the witness’s credi bility has been challenged and whether the prior consistent statement would “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect 9 of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Fields , , 345 (Minn. 2004) ; see generally State v. Horst , , 31 (Minn. 2016) (holding an appellate court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo when reviewing a district court's decision to deny suppression of defendant's statements to police in the absence of a Miranda warning).

Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which the y did.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that a defendant who fails to object on hearsay grounds forfeits an appellate challenge on the issue).

-48 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Nunn, d at 909).

d 341[, 349] (Minn. 2004).

-48 (Minn. 2004); review denied (Minn. Feb.

DECISION Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “‘limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” (d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989)).

A. Standard of Review This court’s “review of the sufficiency of the evidence is ‘limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” (quoting State v. Webb, 4 ).

We also recognized in Goodloe that after Moore we had reiterated that “a finding of premeditation does not require a specific length of time for deliberation.” Goodloe, d at 421 -22 ( ).

(citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 136-37 , 119 S.Ct.

When faced with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we conduct a thorough review of the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”

Lindberg v. Comm’r of Pub.

Our review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().

We note, however, that we spelled Paige's first name "LeTerrance” (affirming Victor Fields' conviction for the first-degree murder of Paige).

Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().