Cited by

8 a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

(stating conviction can rest on uncorroborated testimony of single credible witness); Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

1 (2022) (providing that victim testimony “need not be corroborated” in prosecutions under section 609.342); (“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted)).

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

Moreover, although “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness,” (quotation omitted), corroborating evidence supports J.M.’s testimony.

It is well- settled that, generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (); see also State v. Nestaval, 75 N.W.

“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

1 (2024); d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) , Flores challenged June’s credibility in his closing argument by emphasizing her volatile home environment, her impressionability for developing false allegations, and her inconsistent recollection of the reported sexual contact.

Indeed, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

“Generally, ‘a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.’” (), aff’d, d 671 (Minn. 2024).

1 (202 4); (holding that the testimony of a single credible witness can provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction).

failed to substantiate his testimony by providing a photo of the bruise or seeking medical care, these arguments go to the credibility of M.L.’s testimony and “the credibility of a witness [is] for the jury to determine.” (cautioning that an appellant’s “attempt to retry his case by asking us to reevaluate [a witness]’s credibility is contrary to [the court’s] role” on appellate review).

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, d 11 465, 477 (Minn. 2004), and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses

See also State v. Foreman , (“A conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”).

And notwithstanding that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may sustain a conviction, 8 K.K.’s testimony is corroborated.

“A conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

Balandin, d at 217; (“[T]he credibility of a witness [is] for the jury to determine.”).

“[ A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, a guilty verdict may be sufficiently supported by “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

1 (2022); (holding that the testimony of a single credible witness can provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction).

Additionally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

A guilty verdict may be sufficiently supported by “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has held that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004).

Carranza notes that t he Minnesota Supreme Court has occasionally reversed convictions in cases in which there were “additional reasons to question the victim’s credibility.” State v. F oreman

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted).

In fact, Carter specifically recognizes that the evidence was “technically sufficient,” that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single credible witness, and that witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the 7 uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

See, –39 (Minn. 2004) (citing Ani’s possibility statement but affirming the conviction based only on victim’s uncorroborated testimony); (citing the Ani statement, noting the presence of corroborating evidence, and concluding, “this is not such a case”); State v. DeBae

A conviction, however, can rest on “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness” (quotation omitted)).

Generally, “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted).