Cited by

-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining “direct evidence” as “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (alteration in original) (quoting Direct Evidence, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)) ).

State v. Porte , see also Bernhardt v. State

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses.

Direct evidence is “evidence that is ba sed on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

“Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quota tion omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).

-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

see also Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) (stating that a higher level of scrutiny is warranted if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence) .

See Bernhardt v. State , n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining circumstantial evidence).

-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

“We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

See Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004) (noting that court will not disturb verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”).

-77 (Minn. 2004) (declining to disturb verdict “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged”).

Appellate courts will not “disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration and quotation omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).

“We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof be yond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

10 In order to convict appellant of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery, the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant “played a knowing role in the commissi on of the crime.” Bernhardt v. State , (quotation omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).

and child-endangerment charges.