CONNOLLY, Judge.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of aiding and abetting attempted intentional second-degree murder for the benefit of a gang and aiding and abetting second-degree assault. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the two convictions, we affirm.
On February 27, 2009, appellant Edisson Lema, age 17, and his friend E.M., also a juvenile, both members of the South Size Raza gang (SSRG), were on the second floor of a shopping mall. They were seen by C.C., age 18, a member of the rival Vatos Locos gang (VLG), and four young men who were with him, including J.V., age 15; and N.G., age 14, who were on the first floor. The members of each gang made signs that disparaged the other.
Appellant and E.M. then came down to the first floor, and appellant suggested the two groups go outside to fight. Five of the young men then went to the parking lot, where appellant fought first with J.V., and then with N.G., while E.M. fought with C.C.
A surveillance video photo shows that appellant was standing very close to E.M. and was looking at him. When appellant was questioned about the photo during his testimony, he gave the following answers:
The surveillance camera did not record sound.
E.M. took a gun from his backpack and first shot C.C., wounding him in the torso; he then sprayed the building with shots, one of which hit J.V. in the leg.
C.C., J.V., and N.G. all testified that appellant told E.M. to shoot C.C., but their testimony differs as to what appellant actually said. C.C. testified that appellant yelled to E.M. in Spanish, "Matalos, matalos," (meaning, "Kill them, kill them"). J.V. testified that appellant "told [E.M.] to pull out the gun, but in English, and he said, `Blast that sh[&mdash],"' (referring to C.C.). N.G. was asked, "Before [E.M.] fired the gun, did [appellant] do something . . . ?"; N.G. answered, "[Appellant] told [E.M.] to take it out and shoot, shoot him so — something like that." N.G. also testified that appellant was speaking English at the time.
Appellant was certified for adult prosecution. He waived his right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, the district court found him guilty of one count of aiding and abetting attempted intentional second-degree murder for the benefit of a gang in regard to C.C. and one count of aiding and abetting second-degree assault in regard to J.V.
Appellant challenges his convictions, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support them.
This court "review[s] criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions." State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1998). Review on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence "is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did." State v. Bakken, 604 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 2000).
To convict appellant of aiding and abetting the attempted intentional second-degree murder of C.C. for the benefit of a gang
Appellant argues that the state cannot prove aiding and abetting because the testimony of C.C., J.V., and N.G. was "hopelessly inconsistent." The district court found that "[t]heir testimony was consistent regarding [appellant] and his statement directing [E.M.] to shoot [C.C.]" The evidence supports this finding. All three testified that, prior to E.M. firing any shots, appellant told him to shoot.
State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 319 (Minn. 1983) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Bakken, 604 N.W.2d at 111 (citing Stufflebean and rejecting argument that 13-year-old victim's prior inconsistent statements contributed to an evidentiary deficiency). Here, all three witnesses had been involved in a traumatic and extremely stressful incident; C.C. and J.V. were its victims. Their failure to agree on appellant's wording when he told E.M. to take the gun and shoot does not indicate that their testimony was false or provide a basis for reversal.