State v. Krall

Citations

• 2026 ND 7

Syllabus

In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts. Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole to determine if they correctly and adequately inform the jury. Selecting and considering only a part of the instructions is not proper. An error in a jury instruction provides grounds for reversal only when the instructions as a whole are erroneous, relate to a central subject in the case, and affect the defendant's substantial right.