"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the crime." Johnson v. State , 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation mark omitted). "We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did."
Id. "We are not required to decide-and in fact we must refrain from deciding-whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did." Johnson v. State, 310 So.3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State).
'" Johnson v. State, 310 So.3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Lenoir v. State, 222 So.3d 273, 279 (¶25) (Miss. 2017)).
In considering whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the crime." Johnson v. State, 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). "We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did."
"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the crime." Johnson v. State, 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation mark omitted). "We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did." Id.
"We are not required to decide—and in fact we must refrain from deciding—whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did." Johnson v. State , 310 So. 3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).
"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and decide if rational jurors could have found the State proved each element of the crime." Johnson v. State, 310 So.3d 328, 331 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (internal quotation mark omitted). "We are not required to decide-and in fact we must refrain from deciding-whether we think the State proved the elements; rather, we must decide whether a reasonable juror could rationally say that the State did."