Cited by

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.” (quotations omitted).

ircumstantial evidence, we apply a heightened standard of review and (1) identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then (2) “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” - 4 74, 477 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted); (quotations omitted).

And the “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”

“In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence 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).

“We recognize that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.” State v. Al–Naseer

(stating that the appellate court reviews the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn therefrom to decide whether the evidence supports the guilty verdict).

The “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, in reviewing a denial of a judgment of acquittal, “we review the evidence 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).

warrants heightened scrutiny.”

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” (quotations omitted).

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the [factfinder’s] acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.” (quotations omitted).

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

And the “[s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”

“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).

State v. Sam, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2015 WL 648220, at *6 (Minn. App. Feb.

V. Sufficiency of the evidence “In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence 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).