Cited by

Ford, d at 225; (stating that we “view corroborative evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict”).

On the second issue, is instructive.

See State v. Pippitt , (holding that when a defendant forfeits their objections to an indictment by failing to include them in the requisite motion and fails to demonstrate good cause to grant relief from their forfeiture, “we need not consider [the] objections to the indictment”).

(“Our precedent does not permit us to re -weigh the evidence.”); State v. Pippitt , 4 (Minn. 2002) (“weighing the credibility of witnesses is a function exclusively for the jury”); (holding that appellate courts defer to the jury’ s credibility determinations even in the face of contrary evi dence).

But, as the state correctly notes, defeats Jefferson’s argument.

This assumption “is particularly appropriate when resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, as it is the function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”

This assumption “is particularly appropriate when resolution of the case depends on conflicting 4 testimony, as it is the function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”

(holding that the defendant could not be convicted of two counts of murder for the same act against the same victim).

Assuming that the fact-finder “believed the stat e’s witnesses is particularly appropriate 4 when resolution of the case depends on conflic ting testimony, as it is the function of the [fact-finder] to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”

This assumption is especially significant when “resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, as it is the function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”

(“[W]eighing the credibility of witnesses is a function exclusively for the jury.”).

“The assumption that the jury believed the state’s witnesses is particularly appropriate when resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony, as it is the function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.”

10 (reasoning that jurors were free to weigh credibility of informant despite questions about his motivation and his multiple prior convictions).

“[W]eighing the credibility of witnesses is a function exclusively for the jury.”

§ 609.04 (2010); (a defendant cannot “legally be convicted of two counts of ...

The “assumption that the jury believed the state’s witnesses is particularly appropriate when resolution of the case depends on conflicting testimony.”