sufficiency of the evidence claim in Minnesota

2016In reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).

2015When addressing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, our review is limited to determining whether the evidence “was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).

2016State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn. 1978).

2016State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn. 1978).

2017Our review of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. DeRosier, 695 N.W.2d 97, 108 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

2016DECISION Our review of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” State v. DeRosier, 695 N.W.2d 97, 108 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

2016State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012).

2016State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012).

2016We assume that the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).

2009When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn.1989); see also State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989) (stating this court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict).

2018State v. Hayes , 826 N.W.2d 799 , 803 (Minn. 2013).

2017See State v. Hayes, 826 N.W.2d 799, 803 (Minn.2013).

2024When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, appellate courts view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict, and . . . assume[] that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016).

2024When evaluating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we “examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2024But “[a] conviction based on circumstantial evidence . . . warrants heightened scrutiny,” requiring us “to consider whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt.” State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

2019See State v. Al-Naseer , 788 N.W.2d 469 , 473-74 (Minn. 2010) (setting forth the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review when an element of a conviction is proven with circumstantial evidence).

2015An appellate court reviews a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to “determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict.” State v. Hurd, 819 N.W.2d 591 , 598 4 (Minn. 2012).

2014DECISION An appellate court reviews a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to “determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to allow a jury to reach a guilty verdict.” State v. Hurd, 819 N.W.2d 591, 598 (Minn. 2012).

2026See State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Minn. 2015).

2025See State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 161 (Minn. 2015) (stating that “we have made it clear, at least with respect to the felon-in-possession statute, that knowledge of the prohibited item is required”); State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017) (noting, in the context of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, that possession of a firearm by an ineligible person requires the State to prove, in relevant part, the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm); cf. Ndikum, 815 N.W.2d at 822 . 15 In certain circumstances, an individual could knowingly possess a firearm without violating the law

2024When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2023When considering a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge, we carefully review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2016We assume “that the jury believed all of the state’s 3 witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466, 477 (Minn. 1999).

2015We must assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466, 477 (Minn. 1999).

2015State v. Nelson, 812 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Minn. App. 2012).

2015State v. Nelson, 812 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Minn. App. 2012).

2009“When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Minn.2008) (quoting State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005)).

2008When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005).

2002State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981); see also In re Welfare of S.A.M., 570 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.App.1997) (applying same standard to juvenile cases).

2002State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981); see also In re Welfare of S.A.M., 570 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.App.1997) (applying same standard to juvenile cases).

2016DECISION “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the [decision-maker] to convict.” State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688, 704-05 (Minn. 2001).

2016“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the conviction to determine whether the evidence reasonably could have permitted the jury to convict.” State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688 , 704–05 (Minn. 2001).

2024Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

2018"Direct evidence is [e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption." Bernhardt v. State , 684 N.W.2d 465 , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

2024State v. Pakhnyuk, 926 N.W.2d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019).

2024“A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim that turns on the meaning of the statute under which a defendant has been convicted presents a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo.” State v. Pakhnyuk, 926 N.W.2d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019).

2017A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

2015We must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011).

2016State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012).

2015We assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” Gulbertson v. State, 843 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). “[W]e 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, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (citing Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004)).2 2 In his pro se supplemental brief, Young contends that his conviction i

2015We “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2015We “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2015When considering a sufficiency- of-the-evidence claim, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach their verdict.” State v. Caine, 746 N.W.2d 339, 356 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

2015In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, our review is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach their verdict.” State v. Caine, 746 N.W.2d 339, 356 (Minn. 2008) 3 (quotation omitted).

2009“When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.’ ” State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Minn.2008) (quoting State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005)).

2009State v. Holliday, 745 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Minn.2008) (citing State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 319 (Minn.2005)).

2008When faced with a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we conduct a thorough review of the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 348 (Minn.2004). (internal quotation marks omitted).

2005Our review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is “limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 348 (Minn.2004) (quoting State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.1989)).

2005Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn.1999).

2004When considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to decide “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn.1999) (quoting State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn.1992)).

2004When considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to decide “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn.1999) (quoting State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn.1992)).

1999In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine "whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted." State v. Moore, 481 N.W.2d 355, 360 (Minn.1992).

2004“We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.” Id. (quoting State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.1998)).

1999"We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions." State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn.1998).

2002State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981); see also In re Welfare of S.A.M., 570 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.App.1997) (applying same standard to juvenile cases).

2002State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981); see also In re Welfare of S.A.M., 570 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.App.1997) (applying same standard to juvenile cases).

1996State v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 819, 826 (Minn.1985) (citations omitted) (citing State v. McCullum, 289 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn.1979)).

1996State v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 819, 826 (Minn.1985) (citations omitted) (citing State v. McCullum, 289 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn.1979)). “[Pjresence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which a person’s participation in the criminal intent may be inferred.” State v. Ulvinen, 313 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Minn.1981).

1997Atkins, 543 N.W.2d at 646 .

1997E.g., State v. Atkins, 543 N.W.2d 642, 646 (Minn.1996).