Cited by

-78 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that a person’s “unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction” of receiving stolen property).

theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction,” (quotation omitted), and argues that the opposite should be inferred here—that “the larger the gap in time between the theft and possession, the less likely knowledge can be inferred.” Again, we are not convinced.

Caselaw establishes that “[a]n individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().

-78 (Minn. App. 2007) (“An individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a .

theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” (quotation omitted).

See, (noting that “Minnesota caselaw requires that the words or acts of the accused have the effect of a physical obstruction”).

theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) ().

at 731; 10 (Minn. App. 2007).

-77 (Minn. App. 2007) (holding that the district court’s plain error in failing to instruct that an obstruction-of-legal- process conviction requires “physical” obstruction affected Hager’s substantial rights when the jury’s questions during its deliberations reflected its confusion on that topic).

“Knowledge that the property was stolen may be proven by circumstantial evidence,” Peterson, d at 95, and “[a]n individual’s unexplained possession of stolen property within a reasonable time after a theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” -78 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted).

theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.” (quotation omitted).

theft will in and of itself be sufficient to sustain a conviction.’” –78 (Minn. App. 2007) (quoting State v. Bagley, 286 Minn. 180, 188, ).

This amendment “reduced the state’s burden of proof by allowing the prosecutor to show that the accused has reason to know that a 5 crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining elements of aiding offender).

at 731; (stating that Minnesota courts have “recognized the distinction between the basic elements of the crime and the facts underlying those basic elements”).