Cited by

(quotation omitted); d 552, 565 (Minn. App. 2026) (analyzing sufficiency of the evidence of “content and character” element under the circumstantial-evidence standard of review).

Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.4 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted).

“Because intent involves a state of mind, it is generally established circumstantially.” (stating that a defendant’s state of mind is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances” (quotation omitted)).

(noting that intent is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances”).

“[W]e have declined to add a specific temporal requirement to the separate acts of domestic abuse,” thus there is no specific amount of time after which incidents are deemed too remote to be proximate.

On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is “based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation and all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

(applying this analysis to first-degree murder); d 412, 423 (Minn. 2007) (applying this analysis to first-degree murder).

Recognizing that “a pattern suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse,” we have stated that, to be a pattern of domestic abuse, each act of domestic abuse must be “sufficiently proximate in time [to one another] to constitute a pattern.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Direct evidence is “ ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’ ” (alteration in original) ( n.4 (Minn. 3 When viewed in a light most factorable to the verdict, the record also supports the conclusion that the night before the assault, Jones told K.S.

at 599 (alteration in original) ( n.4 (Mi nn.

See State v. Goodloe , , 422 (Minn. 2006) (requiring only "a short period of time" for premeditation); see also State v. Galvan , , 671 (Minn. 2018) (noting that two close-range gunshots to the head constituted "execution-style" killing and supported a finding of premeditation); State v. Clark , , 422-23 (Minn. 2007) (bringing murder weapon to the scene showed planning evidence that supported premeditation).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist ,” State v. Hokanson , 821 N .W.2d 340, 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted), whereas direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

2(b)(4)-(5) (2018) ; see Gulbertson v. State , , 243, 245 n.6 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that the defendant and the victim "were involved in a romantic relationship for several years," lived together, and thus were "family or household members" under the statute); State v. Clark , , 415, 418 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that the defendant and the victim "had been together as a couple for about 16 years" and relying in part on family-household member provision).

Here, the state presented direct evidence of Sawina’s determination and intent—all five victims testified that Sawina said, “Get out, I’m going to kill you guys.” (characterizing the defendant’s statement, “I want him dead,” as direct evidence of mens rea); n.4 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that direct evidence is “[e]videnc e that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (alteration in original)).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Clark , n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

See McArthur , d at 50 (relying on the inference that the defendant retrieved the murder weapon within a few hours before the murder); State v. Clark , , 422-23 (Minn. 2007) (relying on the fact that the defendant brought the murder weapon to the scene of the murder as strong evidence of premeditation); State v. Austin , , 25 (Minn. 1983) (relying on the fact that the defendant walked up a set of stairs before shooting the victim as evidence of premedit

State v. Clark , , 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) ; see also Cox , d at 412 (possessing the murder weapon before the murder was planning activity); State v. Clark , , 423 (Minn. 2007) (bringing the murder weapon to the scene of the murder was planning activity); State v. Austin , , 25 (Minn. 1983) (walking up a *8 set of stairs to commit a murder supported an inference of premeditation).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” Harris, d at 599 ( n.4 (Minn. 2007)).

d 412, 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007).

(concluding that two incidents of domestic abuse against a victim that occurred 13-15 years prior to later instances of abuse were too distant in time to establish a past pattern).

fer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quoting 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Whartons Criminal Evidence § 1:8 (15th ed. 1997)), In contrast, direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” , 421 n.4 (Minn. 2007) (alteration in original) ( , 477 n.11 (Minn. 2004)).

(holding appellant’s statement that she wanted victim dead was direct evidence of mens rea); n.4 (Minn. 2007) (holding direct evidence proves a fact without any inference or presumption).

See Palmer, d at 736-37 (reasoning evidence showing that the defendant “stood over [the victim] and finished him off,” including the downward trajectories of some of the bullets, supported the jury’s finding of premeditation); (reasoning evidence showing that the fatal second wound was inflicted while the' victim was lying on the floor supported the jury’s finding of premeditation).

A defendant’s state of mind is “generally proved circumstantially--by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

-37 (Minn. 2011) (reasoning evidence showing that the defendant “stood over [the victim] and finished him off,” including the downward trajectories of some of the bullet paths, supported the jury’s finding of premeditation); (reasoning evidence showing that the fatal second wound was inflicted while victim was lying on the floor supported the jury’s finding of premeditation).