Cited by

(“It is well-established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible 13 witness.”).

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).

d 385, 391 (Minn. 1990).

Appellate courts do not retry the facts, and “resolution of conflicting testimony is the exclusive function of the jury.” (quotation omitted).

(“[I]t is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

The officer also testified that Tavarez was “extremely verbally combative and noncompliant throughout the whole process.” The assessment of witness credibility is a jury function, and “a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”

And “a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Bliss

The supreme court concluded that “the [district] court was free to credit the testimony that was adverse to [the defendant’s] position.” Id.; (“it is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence” (quotation omitted)).

(“It is the job of a jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses.”); (“It is well established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”).

(stating a conviction can be based solely on testimony from one credible witness).

aining that our standard of review requires us to “assume the fact -finder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with [its] verdict”); State v. Ostrem , (explaini ng that we view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the state,” when concluding sufficient evidence supported a conviction, despite the presence of conflicting evidence); State v. Bliss , (“Defendant’s attempt to retry his case by asking us to reevaluate [a witness]’s credibility is contrary to our role.”).

“It is well e stablished that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Bliss , (recognizing that a drug-sale conviction could be affirmed based solely on a lay witness’s uncorroborated testimony that th e defendant sold him marijuana) , review denied (Minn. Sept.

(“The weight and credibility of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine .

But, “[t]he weight and credibility of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine, and on review it is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” State v. Bliss , (citation and quotation omitted).

“The weight and credibility of individual witnesses is for the [fact-finder] to determine.”

“The wei ght and credibility of 6 individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.” State v. Bliss

(stating that appellate courts do not “retry the facts” because resolving conflicting testimony is the jury’s function).

“On review, it is necessary to assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (citation omitted).

Furthermore, “[i]t is well-established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness.”

(stating that “[appellant]’s attempt to retry his case by asking us to reevaluate [witness] credibility is contrary to our role”); (“Appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations.”).

We defer to the fact-finder’s determinations of witness credibility and we acknowledge that any “attempt to retry [the] case by asking us to reevaluate [witness] credibility is contrary to our role.”

t the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because “[t]he state’s case relies entirely on [S.L.’s] credibility since she is the only person claiming to have seen [him].” But “[i]t is well established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness,” and “[t]he weight and credibility of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine.”

d 385, 390 (Minn. 1990).