Cited by

(“It is well established that before a plea of guilty can be accepted, the [district court] must make certain that facts exist from which the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged can be reasonably inferred.”), (concluding that a manifest injustice did not exist where the defendant’s testimony was “sufficient to infer [his] guilt”).

“[T]he jury is in the best position to weigh the credibility of evidence and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to their testimony.”

evidence we generally “view the evidence in a 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.’ ” ().

Moore’s argument that the trial court’s

When analyzing the nature of the killing, we consider “facts about the nature of the killing from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The court described in detail the evidence presented to the jury of planning activity, which we have defined as “‘facts about how and what the defendant did [before] the actual killing which show he was engaged in activity directed toward the killing....’” ().

When a defendant claims that the State’s direct evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, “ ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.’ ” 1 ().

§ 609.18 prior to the commission of the act took place.”

§ 609.18 (2010) (defining premeditation); -39 (Minn.2011) (holding that premeditation can occur in a short amount of time, even after a fight has already commenced); (concluding that defendant’s statement, “[g]ood-bye Debra, I am going to kill you now” before defendant shot the victim “permitted] an inference that defendant had sufficient time to contemplate his actions before carrying them out”).

Andersen, d at 332 ; (“[T]he evidence as a whole may support a finding of premeditation even if no single piece of evidence standing alone would be sufficient.”).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, our review of the evidence is 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.”

ficiency of the evidence, “we view the evidence in a 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.’ ” ().

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review 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 he was convicted.”

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review 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 he was convicted.”

State v. Moore (Moore II)

When the question is the sufficiency of evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.”

When assessing a defendant’s motive, we consider “ ‘facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be inferred.’ ” Moua, d at 40 ().

(internal citations omitted).

or relationship and conduct with the victim from which motive may be in *606 ferred’ and (3) evidence as to the nature of the killing, i.e., facts “ ‘from which it may be inferred that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.’ ” -41 (Minn.2004) ().

We have said, “In order to prove premeditation, ‘the state must always prove that, after the defendant formed the intent to kill, some appreciable time passed during which the consideration, planning, preparation or determination required * * * prior to the commission of the act took place.’ ” ().