to allow a fact-finder to reasonably conclude that respondent’s actions were unjustified. It is for the jury to hear the evidence presented by the parties, weigh the witnesses’ credibility, and determine whether respondent unjustifiably killed the cat. DECISION Because the district court invaded the province of the jury in concluding that respondent did not unjustifiably kill an animal, we reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded. 1 . Respondent argues that district courts give "great deference” to a police officer's experience and judgment in determining whether probable cause exists. Vertina v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 356 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.App.1984) (accepting police officer testimony at an implied consent hearing); see also State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 202 N.W.2d 878 (1972) (<HOLDING>). But the cases respondent cites are not
holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg  4b12a holding that state has jurisdiction to prosecute a nonindian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an indian reservation holding where police officer specifically requested bac test be performed on defendant at hospital and defendant did not dispute police officers probable cause to believe defendant drove under influence of alcohol defendants consent to undergo blood test was implied and hospital was required to release bac results holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol