State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Fithi Chernet Asfaha, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C6-97-481

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Vincent James Jourdain,

Appellant.

 Filed January 13, 1997

 Affirmed

 Toussaint, Chief Judge

Clay County District Court

File No. K1951708

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, Paul R. Kempainen, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Todd Webb, Clay County Attorney, Clay County Courthouse, 807 North Eleventh Street, Moorhead, MN 56561 (for respondent)

Lawrence W. Pry, Assistant State Public Defender, 875 Summit Avenue, LEC 304, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.**

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Appellant Vincent James Jourdain challenges his conviction of one count of controlled substance crime in the fifth degree for selling marijuana to a police informant. Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conviction, we affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

  Jourdain argues that because the police informant was the sole witness to the alleged drug buy, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Jourdain claims that (1) the informant's criminal history and past drug use casts doubt on the testimony and damages the informant's credibility; (2) the possibility of economic gain and respect from the police could have motivated the informant to fabricate his testimony; and (3) there was no other evidence to show that appellant made the drug buy or even lived at the apartment building. Jourdain argues that the conviction therefore must be overturned.

In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to ascertaining whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. We cannot retry the facts, but must take the view of the evidence most favorable to the state and must assume that the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.

 State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 111 (Minn. 1978) (citations omitted). A guilty verdict will not be disturbed if the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could have found the defendant guilty. State v. Pierson, 530 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Minn. 1995).

On this record, we cannot say the jury verdict is unsupported by the record. At trial, the police informant made a positive identification of Jourdain. The informant was wearing a "wire" during the drug buy, and the audiotape was played in its entirety for the jury. Moreover, the informant fully disclosed his criminal and drug history in the presence of the jury. The informant's own criminal history and his testimony regarding the drug sting operation were corroborated by the testimony of the police detectives supervising the operation. Furthermore, Jourdain presented no evidence to rebut the testimony of the police informant.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, as we must, we conclude that the jury believed the state's witnesses and discounted any contrary evidence. Id. The record supports the jury verdict.

  Affirmed.