Cited by

(stating that “heightened 3 scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

(noting that, for an inference to be rational, appellant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt).

any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 469, 473 (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).

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 was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Al- 5 Naseer, (quotation omitted).

(noting that, for an inference to be rational, appellant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt).

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).

The deference at this first step to the fact-finder’s acceptance of the proof of the circumstances and rejection of evidence that conflicts with the circumstances proved “recognize[s] 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).

“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).

And “[w]e do not set aside verdicts based on speculation.”

7 That heightened standard requires appellate courts “to consider whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]f any one or more circumstances found proved are inconsistent with guilt, or consistent with innocence, then a reasonable doubt as to guilt arises.” (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 g uilt.” State v. Al-Naseer, 6 (quotations 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”).

When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence we apply “heightened scrutiny.”

.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); (concluding the Al-Naseer standard applies to a motion for a judgment of acquittal).

In doing so, the appellate court “examine[s] independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved including inferences consistent with rational hypotheses other than guilt” and “give[s] no deference to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted).

-75 (Minn. 2010) (describing the heightened, two-step standard of review to be applied when circumstantial evidence is used to prove an element of a crime).

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).

(“ The documents filed in 16 In reviewing whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, appellate courts “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).

( ) (stating that the district court is “ required to apply the Al-Naseer/Silvernail analysis” to decide a motion for judgment of acquittal in a circumstantial-evidence case).

(applying “heightened scrutiny” to “state of mind” evidence).

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 presented by the state “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).

To assess 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.’” ().

warrants heightened scrutiny.”

at 599- 601 (discussing circumstantial - evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on 15 circumstantial 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 t o exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

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