Cited by

“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 7 as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

-03 (Minn. 2017); (stating that “heightened scrutiny 8 applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

We will uphold a conviction when the circumstantial evidence forms “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).

warrants heightened scrutiny,” requiring us “to consider whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

First, we identify the circumstances proved, “defer[ring], consistent with [the] 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.” (quotation 1 The state contends that it offered direct evidence of Johnson’s intent through R.R.’s statements to the 911 dispatcher.

And 15 we may not “overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quoting Lahue, d at 789).

leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Yet, “[t]he State does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.” (emphasis 9 added).

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).

easonable doubt of the offense of whic h he was convicted,” and we will not overturn the verdict “if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of 5 proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” Burnett, d at 537-38 (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).

-75 (Minn. 2010); Harris, d at 599 (defining circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist” (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).

-61 (Minn. 2018) (describing our review of direct evidence as “painstaking” (quotation omitted)); (describing our review of circumstantial evidence as “heightened”).

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).

Colgrove, d at 150; –75 (Minn. 2010) (stating that the heightened-scrutiny standard applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on 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 to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’”) ().

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).

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we defer, consistent with [the] 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.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

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