Cited by

(that reasonable minds could differ on inferences to be drawn does not render evidence insubstantial).

“A new trial is required only if the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.” (citation omitted).

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial, and if reasonable minds can differ on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, “the case must be submitted to the jury” and the court “has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.”

“A motion for new trial should be granted ‘only if the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.’” ¶ 74 (2013) ().

We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal, ¶ 23 (App. 2018), which can include circumstantial evidence

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted).

(“[I]f reasonable minds can differ on inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.”).

“Evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but if reasonable minds can differ on inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.”

A court cannot, however, enter a judgment of acquittal “[w]hen reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts.” ().

“Evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but if reasonable minds can differ on inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.”

¶9 “When reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” ().

A motion for new trial should be granted “only if the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.”

“Evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but if reasonable minds can differ on inferences to be drawn therefrom, the ease must be submitted to the jury.” , (citation omitted).

¶9 our supreme court held that the trial court‟s failure to give an instruction on second-degree murder was not error because the instruction was not supported by the evidence.

However, a court errs in denying such a motion “only if the evidence was insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.”

The “key to this rule is ‘whether the jury could rationally fail to find the distinguishing element of the greater offense.’” ¶ 37, ( ); ¶ 23, this case, the State produced all calls taped by the detectives and disclosed a list of the phone calls they reviewed but did not preserve, and thus complied with Rule 15.1(b)(2).