Cited by

D E C I S I O N In considering a claim of insufficient evid ence, review by an appellate court is “limited to a painstaking anal ysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorab le to the conviction, was suffi cient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.”

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this 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 permit the jurors to reach the verdict 7 which they did.”

6 verdict which they did.”

In considering his claim, 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 [factfinder] to reach the verdict.”

We review the sufficiency of the evidence based on a thorough analysis of the record, viewing the evidence in “the light most favorable to the conviction.” State v. Webb, 5 see also State v. Hawkins , (requiring a reviewing court to c onsider the evidence in a manner that is “most favorable to the state” and assume th at the jury “disbelieved” any contradictory testimony).

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we thoroughly analyze the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the convicti on, was sufficient to permit th e [factfinder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” State v. Webb

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, we thoroughly review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit th e jurors to reach the ve rdict that they did.”

In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, our review is limited to a thorough 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 that they did.”

In considering her claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct “a painst aking 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 considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our 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, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb

Under the traditional standard, this court review s 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 whether the record evidence is sufficient, we thoroughly review “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit th e jurors to reach the ve rdict that they did.”

In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, 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 jur[y] to reach the verdict [ that it] did.”

This court’s review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine 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).

When sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal , we thoroughly review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [factfinder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” ().

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we conduct a thorough “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

In reviewing a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.”

(describing the standard of review for sufficiency-of- the-evidence challenges generally).

3 D E C I S I O N In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, this court reviews the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favor able to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict [it] did.”

rectly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”); (reversing convictions because “[t]he evidence did not form a complete chain leading so directly to appellant’s guilt as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt”); (reversing a conviction because “[t]he circumstantial evidence was not inconsistent with rational hypotheses other than guilt”).

minal intent to support a conviction for second-degree assault.” When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, this court thoroughly 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 the verdict which they did.” ( 5 (Minn. 1989)).

d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).