Cited by

“Intent is an inference drawn by the [finder of fact] from the totality of circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

–20 (Minn. 2004), we affirmed the defendant’s attempted criminal sexual conduct conviction based on evidence that the defendant made statements to the victim with a “discernable sexual overtone” and other-acts evidence showing that the defendant had engaged in similar sexual assaults in the past.

Moreover, in State v. Welch , d 615, 620 (Minn. 2004), the supreme court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a kidnapping conviction because “the confinement that form[ed] the basis of the kidnapping [was] the very force and coercion that support[ed] the attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction.” Similarly i

She relies on the supreme court’s decision in State v. Welch

In making this argument, he relies on two kidnapping cases, overruled on other grounds by State v. Leake

5 In both of these cases, the kidnapping charges were overturned and the court held that “where the confinement or removal of the victim is com pletely incidental to the perpetration of a separate felony, it does not constitute kidnapping.” State v. Smith , -21 (Minn. 2004).

This court assumes that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” ().

See, (noting that two of that defendant’s cellmates testified about an incriminating conversation with the defendant); d 615, 619-20 (Minn. 2004) (holding that the district court’s finding, based on a witness’s testimony, that the initial conversation between the witness and the defendant contained a “sexual overtone” was supported by the evidence).

21, 2014); review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).

(emphasis added); (concluding, when “[n]o removal—let alone nonincidental removal—[wa]s even alleged,” that “facts clearly d[id] not support a conviction for kidnapping”).

to support his argument that the present offense did not involve a heinous element.

See, -23 (Minn.2006); -21 (Minn.2004); -33 (2003).

Similarly, -21 (Minn.2004), we reversed the defendant’s kidnapping conviction, concluding that “the confinement that forms the basis of the kidnapping is the very force and coercion that supports the attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction.” Turnage argues that the confinement of Vang in the car did not co

The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (internal citation omitted).