Cited by

2 State v. Webb , The state indicates that the district court treated the felony theft and misdemeanor assault offenses as lesser -included offenses and “properly avoided entering convictions and imposing sentences” for those offenses.

D-2 (); (“If the jury could reasonably conclude a defendant had been proven guilty, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, this court will not disturb the verdict.”).

Once the statute is interpreted, 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.” –58 (Minn. 2021) ().

(describing a review for sufficiency of the evidence as a “painstaking analysis” of the entire record).

“In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this 5 court’s review ‘is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the verdict that it did.” ().

When the contested element is supported by direct evidence, appellate review is limited to “a ‘painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, [is] sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.’” ().

When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the appellate court analyzes 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.”

To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish this element, we view the evidence in the “ light most favorable to the conviction” and determine whether the evidence “was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”

When reviewing a case for sufficiency of the evidence , our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to deter mine 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.”

Once we interpret the statute, however, we then conduct “a painstaking analysis of 5 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).

2(b), we now turn to Friese’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction.7 On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conduct “a painstaking analysis of 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.”

DECISION When reviewing a case for sufficienc y of the evidence, 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.”

s no “swindle” because he did not deploy any “trick.” In any appeal in which an appellant cha llenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court is required to conduct “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the 7 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 a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts 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.” ().

d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).

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 6 they did.”

When addressing a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge, we undertake “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.” State v. Webb