Cited by

Appellate courts will not dist urb a verdict “if the jury, ac ting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the ne cessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reason ably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty.” –77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

If the evidence is “sufficient to permit the juro rs to reach the verdict which they did,” Webb, d at 430, and the jury “c ould reasonably c onclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged,” then this court “will not disturb the verdict.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

“Direct evidence is [e]vidence that is based on pers onal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

“‘Direct evidence’ is ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Black’s La w Dictionary 596 (8th ed. 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 reason ably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty.” Bernhardt v. State , 76–77 (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] 11 defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

See Bernhardt v. State , n.11 (Minn. 2004) (stating that direct evidence is based on personal knowledge and observation).

“We will not disturb the verdict if the [factfinder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innoc ence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reas onable doubt, could reas onably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

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

-77 2 The 52 pills had a total weight of 31.721 ± 0.005 grams.

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

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

Circumstantial evidence is “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

This court will not disturb the jury’s 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).

Appellate courts “will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, cou ld reasonably conclude that a defendant was guilt y of the offense charged .” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

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

Bernhardt v. State , 9 (Minn. 2004).