State v. Engstrom

This case involved only the determination by the jury of a disputed question of fact upon conflicting evidence. An examination of the evidence is convincing that the jury was warranted in believing that the state's witnesses told the truth and that the witnesses for the defense not only did not do so, but that the defense viewed as a whole had, as we said in State v. Hankins, 193 Minn. 375, 379, 258 N.W. 578, 580, the earmarks of "home manufacture."

As we pointed out in State v. Schmidt, 155 Minn. 440,193 N.W. 954, where there was a similar fact dispute, the appellate court should view the…