Cited by

-75 (Minn. 2010) (describing use of circumstantial- evidence standard “in cases in which both direct and circumstantial evidence support the conviction”).

First, Clark asserts the district court’s decision conflicts with the supreme court’s

(stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”) ; Palmer, d at 73 3 (indicating that an appellate court applies the same standard of review to bench trials and jury trials, even if the guilty verdict was

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

After we first heard oral arguments, we requested supplemental briefing and reheard oral argument on six legal questions, which focused on how to identify the circumstances proved in a circumstantial-evidence analysis, were consistent with our long-standing circumstantial-evidence test, and also inquired as to the standard to be applied in considering a motion for a judgment of acquittal that is made and decided before a verdict is returned.

Because witness testimony and the driving record are direct evidence, we review “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them” would allow the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof, “to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotations omitted).

(“We recognize that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.”).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that, in challenging a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, a defendant may point “to evidence in the 9 record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt” but appellate courts “do not set aside verdicts based on speculation” (quotation omitted)).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence presented at trial “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

The circumstantial evidence the state presents “must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

d 469, 480-81 (Minn. 2010).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

The circumstantial evidence the state presents “must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view 6 of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

-74 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

An appellate court will uphold the conviction when the “circumstantial evidence” form “a complete chain that [] leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

The circumstantial evidence the state presents “must form a complete 9 chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” 19 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

See Harris, d at 601 -03 (discussing circumstantial-evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

But appellate courts “do not set aside verdicts based on speculation.”

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence presented at trial “to determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant wa s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (stating that appellate courts “use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence