Cited by

ty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances proved must be consistent with that conclusion and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.” The district court denied Klingelhoets’s request based on its determinations that it was not “the standard for a jury” and that the requested “heightened scrutiny [was] an applied standard for appeal.” 19 “ [the Minnesota Supreme Court] stated that a district court’s jury instruction in a criminal case involving circumstantial evidence

we held that this jury instruction language is not constitutionally required, but we have never said this reminder to the jury is improper.

“The reviewing court must examine the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion was made to determine whether the [district] court’s decision prejudiced [the] defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

deciding whether there is sufficient evidence for a case to go to the jury”); cf. Holl, d at 814 (observing that “the jury was never presented with an instruction related to the corroboration requirement in section 634.03 and therefore did not consider whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the statute”); State v. Turnipseed, 12 (observing that “courts have emphasized that tests for sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction should be distinguished conceptually from jury instruction

“The reviewing court must examine the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion [for a continuance] was made to determine whether the [district] court’s decision prejudiced [the party] by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

we held that this jury instruction language is not constitutionally required.

(explaining that a reviewing court must consider whether denial of a continuance request “prejudiced [the] defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial”).

“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a continuance lies within the sound discretion of t he [district] court and will only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” d 308, 311 (Minn. 1980).

When we review convictions, we apply one standard for 9 Moreover, the Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that “tests for sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction should be distinguished conceptually from jury instructions, and that not every sufficiency of evidence test should be read to the jury.” 12 (Minn. 1980).

E.g., Miller, d at 239 (citing Lloyd, d at 247 and State v. Tunipseed , ).

In considering whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a continuance request, a reviewing court should consider “the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion was made.” State v. Turnipseed , (noting that the district court “should base its decision [on a continuance request] on the facts and circumstances surrounding the request”).

On appeal, we consider “the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion [for a continuance] was made to determine whether the 12 [district] court’s d ecision prejudiced [the] defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

An appellant must show that “the substituted instruction contained a material misstatement of law when r ead in the context of the instructions as a whole.”

We examine the circumstances at the time the defendant made the motion to determine whether the district court’s decision prejudiced the defendant by “materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

We “examine the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion was made to determine whether the [district] court’s decision prejudiced [appellant] by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

we stated that a district court’s jury instruction in a criminal case involving circumstantial evidence does not need to state that the circumstances proved must be “consistent with [the] conclusion [of guilt] and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.” We noted that such language is n

(stating that it is within district court’s discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance).

“The reviewing court must examine the circumstances before the [district] court at the time the motion was made to determine whether the [district] court’s decision prejudiced [the] defendant by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”

ears to argue that the jury should have been instructed that “[cjircumstantial evidence in a criminal case is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence so long as the circumstances proved are consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except guilt.”