Cited by

d 536, 537–39 (Minn. 2004) (holding that the victim’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to support a second-degree assault conviction, despite the victim’s prior recantation of assault allegations against the defendant); –88 (Minn. App. 2023) (concluding that there was sufficient

Here, the jury’s acquittals say nothing about whether it credited D.P.’s testimony, and we assume the jury believed the state’s witness

(noting that in a criminal case, under the higher beyond -a-reasonable-doubt standard, “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).

Juries, not appellate courts, are tasked with weighing credibility and it is well- established that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) ().

539 (Minn. 2004) (holding that testimony of victim was sufficient to support conviction “heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

–41 (Minn. 2004) (reducing a sentence where the district court mistakenly imposed a sentence higher than the presumptive sentence); –54 (Minn. App. 2013) (correcting a sentence where the district court imposed consecutive sentences instead of the presumptive concurrent sen

in which the supreme court cited Gluff, Langteau, Huss, and Ani in the course of affirming a conviction of domestic assault.

1 (2008); (stating that a conviction for sexual assault can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness).

- 39 (Minn. 2004) (distinguishing Langteau and Gluff and affirming a second-degree-assault conviction despite the victim’s earlier recantation of her testimony).

d 664, 673-74 (Minn. 2006)

A guilty verdict may be based on the testimony of a single credible witness, because 9 “[c]orroboration is not required in criminal sexual conduct cases,” rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2004).

Furthermore, while much of the state’s evidence came from D.C.’s testimony, (stating that uncorroborated testimony of single credible witness may be sufficient to support conviction), other evidence corroborated her testimony.

(stating that uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness may be sufficient to support a conviction).

(stating that uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness may be sufficient to support a conviction).

See State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted) (stating that a criminal conviction, which requires the much higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, “can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness”).

In Gluff, the “uncorroborated identification of the defendant did not have 19 probative value because the witness had seen the perpetrator for only a short time and there had been errors in the lineup process.”

1 (2016); see also State v. Foreman , (“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (quotation omitted)).

(affirming conviction based on victim’s initial account of incident, and observing that there is no requirement for co rroboration of a victim’s testimony).

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we are “limited to ascertaining whether, based on the evidence presented at trial, a jury could have reasonably concluded that the accused is guilty of the offense.” (quotation omitted).

1 (2018) (the testimony of a victim in criminal-sexual-conduct cases “need not be corroborated”); (discussing that a guilty verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness).

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.

First, “a conviction can rest on the uncorr oborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

This reflects the general rule that “‘a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.’” State v. Foreman , d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) ().

A conviction can rest on the testimony of a single credible witness, and the 19-year-old victim testified that, on multiple occasions when she was between the ages of about 3 and 1 2, Banks engaged in various conduct that supports the conviction.

” State v. Foreman , d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004).

Moreover, the supreme court later declined an opportunity to apply the corroboration rule suggested by the Ani opinion and instead reaffirmed that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. F oreman, d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

And the supreme court has stated “that a conviction can rest on the unc orroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman

The supreme court has held that “a conviction can res t on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted).

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

9 believed the state’s witnesses) ; see also State v. Foreman , (noting that uncorroborated tes timony from a single credible witness can support a conviction).

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

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

at 77; (distinguishing Langteau and Huss).

d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004).

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