We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict when determining whether the jury acted with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the need to overcome it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994). Furthermore, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence will be upheld and such evidence is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence, so long as a detailed review of the record indicates that the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.

19 to Stearns County for prosecution costs. We affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1994). Restitution to the victim's estate was ordered pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 609.10(5) (1992), 611A.04, subd. 1(a) (1992).

State v. Nunn, 561 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn. 1997) (citing State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994)). Depending on whether the district court's erroneous admission of evidence implicates a constitutional right, we have applied two different harmless-error tests for determining whether the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the evidence.

In determining whether evidence is sufficient, this court thoroughly reviews the record to determine if the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994). This court reviews the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict and assumes that the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.

On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced. State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994) (quoting State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Minn. 1981)).

A reviewing court assumes that the jury believed the evidence favorable to the state and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. See State v. Olhausen, 681 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 2004); State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994). A reviewing court 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 [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged."

Probable cause exists when "evidence worthy of consideration . . . brings the charge . . . within reasonable probability." State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted). Stated differently, probable cause exists when "the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to hold an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime."

A defendant has the burden of establishing both an abuse of discretion and prejudice resulting from the ruling. State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 799 (Minn. 1994). If there is any reasonable doubt that erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the verdict, then a new trial is warranted. State v. Naylor, 474 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 1991).

The fact finder is free to question a defendant's credibility and has no obligation to believe a defendant's story. State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 800 (Minn. 1994). 1. Second-degree assault

Probable cause exists if "evidence worthy of consideration * * * brings the charge * * * within a reasonable probability." State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted). Even though the district court incorrectly stated the indictment standard for both counts, the error is harmless because the district court's findings support the dismissal of the indictments under the proper standard.