Cited by

This record includes direct evidence of Walter’s physical control of the car, such as testimony from the 1 When an appellate court reviews the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the first step “is to identify the circumstances proved.”

“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).

-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”).

“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 exclu de beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

When evaluating 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).

warrants heightened scrutiny.” .

State v. Porte , ( 6 (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).

“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 13 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.”

(holding that heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt .” State v. Peterson , ().

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing heightened standard of review for circumstantial evidence), review denied (Minn. Jun.

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence, however, warrants heightened scrutiny.”

The circumstances proved 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 (Minn. 2010).

State v. Al-Naseer , 73 (Minn. 2010).

see also State v. Porte , - 10 (Minn. App. 2013) (discussing heightened standard of review for circumstantial evidence).

When a conviction i s based on circumstantial evidence, however, we apply “heightened scrutiny.”

5 When reviewing the sufficiency of direct evidence, we ask “whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them” 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.” (quoting State v. Moore , ).

7 A conviction based on circumstantial evid ence receives “heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer

3-74 (Minn. 2010) (indicating that the circumstantial evidence standard of review applies when a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence) .

State v. Al-Naseer , (Mi nn.

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we “review the evidence to determine whether the facts in the record and t he 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).

The circumstances proved 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.”

warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer

warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Al-Naseer