Cited by

D E C I S I O N Sufficiency of evidence In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court must determine “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.” (quotation omitte d).

“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 reasonabl y conclude that a defendant wa s proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence based on 4 inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” d 465, 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alterations omitted) (quotation omitted ).

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

-77 (Minn. 2004) ( noting deference to verdict if jury, acting with due regard for presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, could reasonably find defendant guilty of charged offense).

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 beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [a] 5 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

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

Th e 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 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

d 465, 476-77 (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 beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven 6 guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation and alteration omitted).

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

Bernhardt v. State , , 476-77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, this court “will not disturb the verdict if the [fact-finder], 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) (alteration in original).

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

See, e.g. , State v. Harris , , 598 (Minn. 2017) ("For approximately a century, we have applied a separate standard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence."); Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) ("Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.").

d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

The reviewing court will not disturb a 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 [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

When reviewing whether the ev idence was sufficient in a criminal case, appellate courts are limited to “ascertaining wh ether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate infere nces that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted).

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

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