This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.  480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).


State of Minnesota,


Cleveland NMN Brown, Jr.,

Filed August 13, 1996
Lansing, Judge

Winona County District Court
File No. K695532

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, William F. Klumpp, 
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota 
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent)

Julius E. Gernes, Winona County Attorney, Winona County 
Courthouse, Winona, MN 55987 (for Respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Susan K. Maki, Assistant 
State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 
600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for Appellant)

	Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, 
Kalitowski, Judge, and Willis, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

	A jury found Cleveland Brown guilty of fifth degree assault 
and terroristic threats.  The district court entered a conviction on 
terroristic threats, and Brown appeals.  The evidence presented at 
trial sufficiently supports the jury's verdict, and we affirm.


	In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, 
this court must determine whether, given the facts in the record and 
the legitimate inferences which may be drawn from those facts, a 
jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the 
offense charged.  State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn. 
1978).  Our review assumes that the jury believed the evidence 
supporting the conviction and disbelieved contrary evidence.  State 
v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980).
	Brown was charged with making terroristic threats in 
violation of Minn. Stat.  609.713, subd. 1 (1994).  The elements 
of this offense are (1) the defendant made a direct or an indirect 
threat; (2) the threat was to commit a crime of violence; and (3) the 
defendant intended to terrorize another or recklessly disregarded 
the risk of causing such terror.  Id.; State v Schweppe, 306 Minn. 
395, 399, 237 N.W.2d 609, 613 (1975).
	The victim of Brown's attack testified at trial that Brown 
grabbed him by the throat and told him that he would kill him.  
This verbal and physical threat satisfies the elements of section 
	Brown also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support the jury's guilty verdict on fifth degree assault.  A person 
commits fifth degree assault when he "commits an act with intent 
to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death."  
Minn. Stat.  609.224, subd. 1(1) (1994).  The same testimony that 
supports the conviction for terroristic threats also supports the jury 
verdict on fifth degree assault.  Recognizing that on these facts the 
assault was an offense included within the terroristic threats 
conviction, the district court did not formally adjudicate Brown 
guilty of fifth degree assault.  See Minn. Stat.  609.04 (1994) 
(barring conviction for lesser included offense).
	Brown asserts that this case demands extraordinary relief in 
the interests of justice.  See State v. Kemp, 272 Minn. 447, 449-50, 
138 N.W.2d 610, 611-12 (1965) (reversing a jury verdict when 
exculpatory and impeachment evidence was withheld from the 
jury).  But Brown does not allege that any evidence was withheld 
from the jury's consideration; he merely asserts that the victim lied. 
 Juries resolve issues of credibility.  State v. Bias, 419 N.W.2d 480, 
484 (Minn. 1988).  The victim's testimony sufficiently supported 
the jury's verdict.