Cited by

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

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

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

We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witn esses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” 8 (Minn. 1989).

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

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

We must 10 assume that the factfinder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

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

We assume th at “the jury believed 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 witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

The reviewing court must assume “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the 9 contrary.”

The reviewing court must assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any eviden ce to the contrary.” State v. Moore

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

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

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

“The weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.” d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

T he reviewing court must assume the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved a ny evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

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

The reviewing court assumes that “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.” d 4 580, 584 (Minn. 1980) (stating that “weighing the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive function of the jury”).

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

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

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

The reviewing court assumes that “the jury believed the state’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

(citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 95-97 , 106 S.Ct.

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded , if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.”

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

The reviewing cour t must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

(stating that we assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary”).

Appellate courts “view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, assuming the 8 jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

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

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

State v. Moore , d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

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

(The “inference of discrimination can be drawn by proof of disproportionate impact upon the racial group,” such as the total exclusion of that racial group from the jury).

This court assumes “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 any evidence to the contrary.”