Cited by

7 viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict that [it] did.” (); (providing that the same standard of review is applicable for assessing sufficiency of the evidence for court trials as jury trials).

Under the traditional standard, the reviewing court conducts “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.”

17 But unlike the concurrence, the concurrence/dissent does not resolve 16 In discussing the inconsistent statements Firkus made during his police interview, the concurrence/

When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we analyze 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 are not persuaded otherwise by Morris’s citation of two cases in which the supreme court reversed convictions due to insufficient circumstantial evidence:

Under the traditional test, we conduct “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.”

Under the traditional test, we conduct “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.”

6 A review for sufficiency of the evidence entails a “painstaking analysis of the record,” (), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

When reviewing a sufficiency challenge based on direct evidence, our review “ is limited to a [close] 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.”

When a disputed element of an offense was supported by direct evidence at trial, our review 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.”

This court reviews “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 their verdict.”

(), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).

When considering a claim of insufficient evidence under the direct evidence standard, this court’s review 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.”

When reviewing an element proved through direct evidence, as the multiple-acts elements of the offenses are here, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they did.” Ahmed, d at 261 ().

When performing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review, we conduct “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.”

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court determines “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach [its] verdict.”

d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).

We do so by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction and determining whether the evidence is “sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”

When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court’s review “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.”

When direct evidence establishes an element of the crime, we painstakingly review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” ().