Cited by

Although that must be true in order to convict, it must also be true that there are no other reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.” (quotation omitted).

d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that “the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence”).

See Harris, d at 599-601 (discussing circumstantial- evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

(stating that 5 430 (Minn. 1989).

When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the first step “is to identify the circumstances proved.” (quotations omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of 8 the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

To sustain the conviction, the “[c]ircumstantial 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 599-601 (discussing circumstantial-evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the 6 conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

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.” State v. Al-Naseer, 12 (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”).

To uphold a defendant’s conviction under this standard, “[c]ircumstantial evidence 16 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 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).

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

First, we identify the circumstances proved by deferring to the factfinder’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances 6 proved by the [s]tate.” (quotation omitted).

“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.” (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).

( 1 Ortley also argues in his pro se supplemental brief that the state’s failure to call eyewitnesses, such as D.B.

See State v. Griffin , -75 (Minn. 2010).

( ; ) (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).

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.” (quotation omitted).

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.” (quotation omitted).

6 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.” (Minn .

(recognizing “that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine 9 credibility and weigh the evidence” and stating, “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture” (quotation omitted)).

warrants heightened scrutiny.”

“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).

“We give no deference to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” (quotations omitted).

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

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

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

-03 (Minn. 2017) (discussing the circumstantial evidence standard); (stating that “the heightened scrutiny 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.” (quotation omitted) .