Cited by

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

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence as evidence that proves a fact without resort to inference or presumption).

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

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

We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence if the jury, “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” –77 (Minn. 2004).

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) (quotation omitted).

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

Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004) ; State v. 15 Webb

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence).

“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 concl ude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004).

“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) (quotation omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (citation omitted).

A reviewing court “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 5 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , , 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

When reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, this court “ascertain[s] whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a [fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.”

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

d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004).

y believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses,” and will not disturb a guilty verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requiremen t of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was prove d guilty of the offense charged, -77 (Minn. 2004).

See State v. Horst , Bernhardt v. State

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 2004)).

“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).

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).

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