Cited by

See State v. Holmberg , (holding that, because the probable cause evidentiary standard is much lower than the evidentiary standard for a conviction, a probable cause argument is irrelevant on appeal of a conviction) , rev. denied (Minn. Mar .

“The standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” d 100, 103 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

Moreover, a probable-cause determination generally is “irrelevant” once a de fendant has been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of 8 the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause .” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(explaining that although the defendant challenged probable cause, this was an irrelevant argument because the district court entered a conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(construing a challenge to denial of dismissal for lack of probable cause following conviction as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

First, once a defendant has been found guilty, a pretrial probable-cause challenge is immaterial because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

(reasoning that a postconviction challenge to probable cause is irrelevant where there was sufficient evidence for a conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

To support this argument

Although a defendant may assert a defense of “reliance on official actions or pronouncements regarding his conduct,” State v. Holmberg , review denied (Minn. Mar.

3 On review of a conviction, the issue of probable cause is irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

Moreover, once a defendant has been found guilty, a pretrial probable -cause challenge is immaterial because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause.” d 100, 103 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (March 21, 1995).

(stating that probable -cause argument after conviction is irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a convictio n is much higher than probable cause”), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Once a defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a probable -cause challenge becomes irrelevant because the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “is much higher than probable cause.” review denied (Minn. Mar.

(st ating that, after conviction, a probable -cause argument was irrelevant because “[t]he standard for the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is much higher than probable cause”), review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (Minn. Mar.

We review jury instructions “in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explained the law of the case.” aff’d (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Mar.

A defendant may defend against a criminal charge by claiming “that he acted in reliance on official actions or pronouncements regarding his conduct.” State v. Holmberg, 9 review denied (Minn. Mar.

(stating claim of failure to dismiss for lack of probable cause is irrelevant where defendant has been convicted because standard for sufficiency of evidence to support conviction is much higher than probable cause), review denied (Minn. Mar.