Cited by

“The defendant has the burden on appeal of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

“The defendant has the burden on appeal of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

See, –26 (Minn. 2015) (determining that 48 stab wounds to vital parts of the victim’s body supported premeditation); (determining that the use of an industrial grade knife to inflict “precise wounds to vital areas” supported premeditation).

rounding the second-degree assault, “we ‘view the evidence in a light most 8 favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict’ when considering whether sufficient evidence supports the jury’s guilty verdict.” ().

d 660, 664 (Minn. 2003).

tion it happened and the date it happened.” In determining whether the evidence is sufficient in a case like this one, whi ch is based on direct evidence, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Balandin , () ; see also State v. Horst , (explaining that when the State presents direct evidence on each element of the offense, “we limit our review to a painstaking analysis of the rec

To determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support a jury verdict, appellate courts “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Chomnarith

To determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support a jury verdict , we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and assume the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.”

“The defendant has the burden on appeal of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence and that the defendant w as thereby prejudiced.” State v. Chomnarith

Evidentiary rulings “rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Chomnarith , (stating that the district court “did not abuse its discretion when it refused to expand the scope of th e evidentiary hearing on remand”).

“Reversal is warranted only when the error su bstantially influences the jury’ s decision.” State v. Chomnarith , (quotation omitted).

(considering the deliberate placement of the bullets “at vital areas of the body” as evidence of premeditation).

(concluding that defendant’s acts of obtaining industrial-grade meat-cutting knife and using it to murder victim in driveway supported inference of premeditation).

“The verdict will not be overturned if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

Under our law, a defendant may be entitled to a reversal of his conviction and a new trial if the improper admission of evidence at trial “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (citation omitted); (“[E]very criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness....

evidence was sufficient to support the verdict because “[although the evidence is circumstantial, it is ‘consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty’ — i.e., that he procured a knife and brought it to Fisher’s bedroom where he stabbed her to death — and is ‘inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except *475 that of guilt.’ ” Leake, d at 320 (); (stating that, “[c]onsidering the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and the totality of the circumstances, the jury coul

See Hall, d at 842 ; (“For constitutional error ...

*583 When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact-finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.”

(finding premeditation existed where the defendant "obtained an industrial grade meat-cutting knife from the residence” before going to the "mouth of the driveway” and stabbing the victim to death); (finding premeditation existed where the defendant

“ ‘Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.’ ” (original citation omitted).

In ad *607 dition, premeditation may be inferred from evidence showing “that ‘wounds were deliberately placed at vital areas of the body.’ ” (quoting Moore, d at 361 ).

3 Evidentiary errors, such as errors in admitting expert testimony, warrant a new trial “ ‘only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.’ ” DeShay, d at 888 ().

This court does not reverse evidentiary rulings of a district court unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, given that “[rjulings on evi-dentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court * * *.”