Cited by

Since Huss, the supreme court has clarified that a conviction may be sustained upon uncorroborated testimony unless there are “additional reasons to question the victim’s credibility.”

State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted ); see also State v. Ani , (“ [T]he absence of corroboration in an individual case .

“[A] conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” (stating that “corroboration is not mandated by statute or the constitution”).

The argument overlooks 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) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

It is well-established that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

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

“A convic tion can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted).

Appellant relies on cases in which convictions were reversed when the s tate provided no evidence to corroborate a witness’s testimony and there were “additional reasons to question the victim’s credibility.” State v. Foreman

But he argues that “in cases where ‘additional reasons to question the victim’s credibility’ exist and the state presented no corroborating evidence, Minnesota’s appellate courts will reverse convictions,” citing State v. Foreman

“[A] convi ction can rest on the uncorro borated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman , (quotation omitted).

In Langteau, the appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, d at 77, whose actions were “questionable or unexplained,” State v. Foreman , (distinguishing Langteau as well as Huss).

In addition, we have long held that a defendant’s conviction can be based on “the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.”

which reversed an upward durational departure and remanded for imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence because the sentencing record established that the court mistakenly imposed an upward durational departure instead of a guidelines sentence, and the record did not provide “any other rationale which would support a departure.” –41 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “the proper remedy” for a court’s mistaken imposition of an upward durational departure is modification of the sentence to a presum

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

at 285; (upholding second-degree assault conviction where Foreman pointed rifle at wife’s head and threatened to kill her).

d give to the testimony, 11 not to its admissibility.” 4 The jury, not the reviewing court, is responsible for weighing the credibility of eyewitness testimony; thus, “the positive and uncontradicted testimony of a victim may be sufficient by itself to support a conviction.”

Because “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness,” (quotation omitted), E.D.’s 12 testimony is sufficient to support A.G.’s adjudication for fleeing a police officer.2 Given the heavy burden A.G.

witness.” (quotation omitted).

cites Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and the Bible for the proposition that “one witness is not enough to convict,” but a “matter must be established by testimony of two or three witnesses.” This reading of Crawford is contrary to settled caselaw holding 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.” (quotation omitted).