Cited by

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t a s s u m e “ t h e j u r y b e l i e v e d t h e s tate’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

that he had come across the firearm and this “strongly suggest[ed] he wanted the gun to remain in the home.” 4 Caldwell, ().

A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed t he state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The appellate court must assume the “[fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court must assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume “t he jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court must as sume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved 4 any evidence to the contrary.”

We "extend a broad review" of questions of fact when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, Butala v. State , , 338 (Minn. 2003) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), and leave "[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony" in the province of the jury, State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989).

We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

5 2407194, at *6 (Minn. App. May 29, 2018) ().

In so doing, we assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,” particularly when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony

d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

The reviewing court must assume “the jury belie ved the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

We defer to the credibility determinations made by the jury and assume that it “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State 7 v. Moore

This court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

State v. Moore , , 108 (Minn. 1989).

The reviewing court assume s that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

(stating that “[t]he weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses” is for the fact-finder to determine).

that examination of the informant might be helpful.”

The reviewing court must assume the factfinder “believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

See State v. Moore , (“ The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the [fact-finder] to determine.”).

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witne sses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

And we enter the analysis assuming that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

Accordingly, we defe r to the jury’s credibility determinations, and assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieve d any evidence to the contrary,” State v. Moore