Cited by

(stating that the discretionary determination of whether multiple sentences should run concurrently or consecutively may not be delegated to the Department of Corrections).

We review sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion, and we interpret the sentencing guidelines de novo

4 The full facts can be found in our previous decisions: Bowles I, d at 525–29, (reviewing the conviction of one of the four co-defendants in the Haaf murder).

–81, 390 (Minn. 2011) (intent to murder a targeted victim transferred to the murder of the wrong target); Cruz-Ramirez, d at 501–02, 507 (intent to murder one victim transferred to the murder of a bystander who was shot and killed); 229 (Minn. 1995) (intent to murder one victim transferred to the attempted murder of a bystander who was accidentally shot and wounded); 323 (Minn. 1990) (intent to murder a pregnant woman transferred to her fetus); –40 (Minn. 1986)

See State v. Ford , (“Unavailability can be established by a w itness deciding to invoke his/her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.”).

In re viewing the sufficiency of the 4 evidence supporting a co nviction, “this court reviews th e evidence in th e light most favorable to the verdict to de termine if the evidence was suffi cient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”

“Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” (quotation omitted).

804(b)(3) (permitting otherwise inadmissible hearsay where the declarant is unavailable and the statement is against the declarant's self-interest); Aubid , d at 480 (holding that a declarant's statement implicating a different person in a crime is not against the declarant's interest for the purposes of Rule 804(b)(3) ); see also State v. Ford , , 227 (Minn. 1995).

“Whereas the power to define and to fix the punishment for crimes is vested in the legislature, the imposition of the sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function.” (quotation omitted).

The corroborating evidence is adequate if “it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” State v. Ford , (Minn .

See, e.g., State v. Ford , review denied (Minn. Apr.

see also Montjoy, d at 109; see also State v. Ford , (holding that the prosecutor’s comments on accountability “seem less of an impassioned plea to send a message, but rather an inartful .

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jur y to reach the verdict it did.” State v. Ford

It is not necessary that it establish a prima facie case of the defendant’s guilt.” State v. Ford

State v. Ford , , 225 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the e vidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.” State v. Ford

“Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it ‘restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.’” ().

See, (declaring witness unavailability may be established by a witness invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination); (“Witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege are unavailable for purposes of the confrontation clause.

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reach the verdict it did.”

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, [appellate courts review] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict it did.”

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict it did.”

“Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it restores confidence in the accomplice’s testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant’s guilt in some substantial degree.” (quotation omitted).

“Whe[n] there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict it did.”