Cited by

To constitute a rational alternative hypothesis, appellant must rely on more than “mere conjecture or the possibility of [his] innocence.”

Appellate courts also “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.”

(“[The defendant] must .

Appellate courts also “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

Neither inconsistencies in the state’s case, nor possibilities of innocence, require reversal “so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such [alternative] theories seem unreasonable.”

When a party fails to object to the admission of evidence, that failure typically “constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal on that basis.” d 849, 863 (Minn. 2008).

Construing “conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,” suggests that, by canceling the check used to get the vehicle out of COP’s impound lot , appellant intended on getting his vehicle back without paying COP.

See Andersen, d at 330 (noting that we will not overturn a conviction based on “mere conjecture”); (avoiding conjecture requires pointing “to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt”).

The circumstances proved, as a whole, need not exclude all inferences other than guilt because “[t]he State’s obligation is to exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt.”

An appellant’s alternative hypothesis to guilt is not a rational hypothesis if it is based on “mere conjecture.”

In other words, we must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the 5 State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” d 849, 858 (Minn. 2008).

(refusing to reverse a conviction based on “mere conjecture or the possibility of innocence when the evidence shows such possibility is unreasonable”).

7 An alternative hypothesis to guilt may not be based on “mere conjecture.”

te asked appellant on cross- examination about C.P., appellant evaded the question several times and stated, “I’m not on [the] stand to snitch on somebody.” An appellant may not rely on “mere conjecture” to establish a reasonably hypothesis of innocence; rather, “[they] must instead point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.” 1 The record shows that appellant’s offense occurred on January 11, but appellant did not report the pick-up truck stolen u

–70 (Minn. 2009) (Meyer, J., concurring) (outlining the D-4 history of the circumstantial evidence test both as a required jury instruction and as a standard of appellate review); n.4 (Minn. 2017) (stating that the reason for

–61 (Minn. 2008) (acknowledging that defendant’s alternative theory was “theoretically possible” but rejecting the argument and upholding the conviction because there was “no physical evidence in the record to provide reasonable support for this hypothesis”).

(“ [P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.”).

(noting that to successfully challenge a jury’s verdict, an appellant must “point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt”).

In other words, we must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

Even so, “inconsistencies in the state’s case or possibilities of innocence” do not require reversal so long as the evidence as a whole “makes such theories seem unreasonable.”

A defendant “may not rely on mere conjecture or speculation.” Al-Naseer, d at 480

In other words, we must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict” and “disregard testimony that is inconsistent with the verdict.” Hawes, d at 6669.

d 849, 858 (Minn. 2008).

In other words, we must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

Even so, “inconsistencies in the state’s case or possibilities of innocence” do not require reversal so long as the evidence as a whole “makes such theories seem unreasonable.”

“Failure to object to the admission of evidence generally constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal on that basis.”