State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Charles Robert Noble, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

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

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C8-96-2559

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Charles Robert Noble,

Appellant.

 Filed December 23, 1997

 Affirmed

 Kalitowski, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 95065960

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Mark F. Anderson, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue SE, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant Charles Robert Noble argues the evidence is insufficient to support the jury verdict convicting him of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342, subd. 1 (c). We affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

Our review of a sufficiency of the evidence appeal "is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction," sufficiently supports the verdict. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). We must assume "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). Further, the "credibility of individual witnesses is for the jury to determine." State v. Bliss, 457 N.W.2d 385, 390 (Minn. 1990).

Appellant contends that because the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the victim feared great bodily harm, his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct cannot stand. We disagree. A review of the trial record indicates that the victim testified: (1) "I was scared not to get up"; (2) that she was afraid of being hurt; (3) that she removed her clothing out of fear; (4) that her emotions at the time were "terrible"; (5) that she was worried about being killed; and (6) that afterwards she was "just happy to be alive." We conclude that this evidence, coupled with the details of appellant's rape of the victim, was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the victim feared great bodily harm and to convict appellant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.

  Affirmed.