Cited by

Although the victim’s testimony may have been inconsistent with her statements to the police, the district court w as free to reject the victim’s in -court testimony and accept the victim’s out-of-court statements, which were recorded on the officers’ body cameras and 8 admitted as evidence at trial .1 (stating that a jury may accept part and reject part of a witness ’s testimony); -85 (Minn. 1980) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict based on the out-of-court statements of two r

“Inconsistencies or conflicts between one state witness and another do not necessarily constitute false testimony or a basis for reversal.” (quotation omitted).

(noting appellate courts defer to jury credibility determinations).

Although we “will readily uphold the admission of so-called ‘signature’ crimes to prove” a perpetrator’s identity, the crime need not be “signature” so long as it is sufficiently similar to the charged offense.

We will not question the weight of the video evidence, Franks, d at 73, and we presume the jury found the officer’s testimony credible, (noting appellate courts defer to jury credibility determinations).

(stating that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction and the reviewing court must assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence).

(concluding that the jury is free to believe some parts of a witness’s testimony and disbelieve others).

See State v. Johnson , (observing that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence).

sometimes recall different events at different times.” Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us. Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted); (“It is a well-established rule that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

Evidence of other crimes of an alternative perpetrator is often called “reverse-Spreigl” evidence.1

about this alleged incident.2 “Evidentiary rulings genera lly rest within the district court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Johnson

d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997) (noting that appellate courts do not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility).

Constans v. Comm’r of Pub.

State v. Johnson , Constans, d at 523.

ding that great deferenc e is given to the trial court’s determinations of witness credibility, and th e appropriate weight to be 13 given to witness testimony rests within the province of the factfinder), aff’d, 508 U.S. 366 (1993); Johnson, d at 387 (“[T]he inconsistencies and related credibi lity determinations [are] for the [factfinder] to assess.”); d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997) (“It is a well-established rule that a co nviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”).

Second, t o show that a reverse - Spreigl incident is “relevant and material,” it “must be similar to the charged offense either in time, location, or modus operandi .” State v. Johnson , (footnote omitted) .

Second, t o show that a re verse- Spreigl incident is “relevant and material,” it “must be similar to the charged offense either in time, location, or modus operandi .” State v. Johnson , (footnote omitted) .

(holding that appellate courts defer to fact-finder on witness credibility); d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997) (holding that appellate courts defer to fact-finder on weight of evidence).

Appellant further argues, -36 (Minn. 1997), that the state failed to meet its burden of proof because there was no independent corroboration of appellant’s participation in the crime.

outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” (-34 (Minn. 1997)).

1 (2016) (stating that in a prosecution for a first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct crime, “the 12 testimony of a victim need not be corroborated”); (“It is a well-established rule that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”).

(“The credibility of individual witnesses and the weight to be given to each witness’ testimony are issues for the jury to determine.”).

(“In keeping with our standard of review, while the case at bar is close, we will not supplant our judgment for a reasonable exercise of the district court’s discretion.”).

(“[A] jury, as the sole judge of credibility, is free to accept part and reject part of a witness’ testimony.” (quotation omitted)).

(); see also State v. Stevens, 248 Minn. 309, 313 , (noting that even “if the jurors believe that a witness has knowingly and willfully testified falsely as to a material fact, ...