Cited by

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the [district court] to reach [its] verdict.”

3 DECISION When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

(describing the circumstantial-evidence test as “stricter standard”).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

In analyzing a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

When assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate courts review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

DECISION Upon review of a claim of insufficient evidence, this court reviews the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.” (noting appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence”).

But even when reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, we recognize that “the jury determines the credibility and weight given to the testimony of individual witnesses.”

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

In analyzing a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

7 in the absence of scientific testing, “ ‘circumstantial evidence and officer testimony may be presented to the jury to attempt to prove the identity of the substance’ at trial.” Dixon, d at 730 (–29 (Minn. 2004)).

5 favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.” .

Fugalli essentially asks us to read section 152.021, subdivision 1(3), as follows: “A person is guilty of a controlled substance crime in the first degree if on one or more occasions 3 Fugalli relies on three primary cases identifying these elements : (identity); State v. Robinson , (weight); State v. Olhausen , (identity and weight).

More recently, the supreme court upheld a conviction, despite the absence of scientific testing, based on abundant non­ scientific evidence.

28, 2015); see State v. Olhausen , 28 (Minn. 2004) (holding that “non -scientific evidence presented at trial relating to the identity and weight of a controlled substance was 8 sufficient to sustain respondent's first-degree controlled substance crime conviction”); -11 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that

Upon review of a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction , is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate courts review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to r each their verdict.”

D E C I S I O N Upon review of a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction , is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, appellate courts review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

Upon review of a claim of i nsufficient evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

Upon review of a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

“In consid ering a claim of insufficient evidence, the record is reviewed to determine whet her the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is suffic ient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.”

State v. Olhausen , , 25 (Minn. 2004).

State v. Olhausen , -26 (Minn. 2004).

see also State v. Palmer , (“[Appellate courts] use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

at 354; 26 (Minn. 2004) (affirming first -degree controlled substanc e offenses, including possession, where there was a wealth of circumstantial evidence that the defendant had possessed methamphetamine but did not possess the substance when arrested).