Because there is sufficient evidence of identification, we affirm. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any conflicting evidence. We review the record to determine whether the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty, considering the facts in evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn from them and given the necessity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Minnesota courts have consistently held that eyewitness identification testimony by one credible eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The jury determines the credibility of a witness.
Identification is also a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Any uncertainty in identification goes to the weight of the evidence and is a consideration for the jury. Yang identified appellant as the robber in a photographic line-up and in court. Because Yang had an opportunity to observe the robber, paid close attention so she could identify him later, accurately described appellant to the police, and was positive in her identification of appellant in the photo line-up that she was shown shortly after the crime, the evidence supports the reliability of the identification. Because the identification evidence was sufficiently reliable to allow the jury to reasonably find appellant guilty, we affirm appellant's conviction. Return to Opinion Index Return to Vol.