Cited by

“A conviction based on circumstantial ev idence, however, warrants heightened scrutiny.” 73 (Minn. 2010).

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.” (citation 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.”

A conviction based on circumstantial evid ence “warrants heightened scrutiny.”

6 When analyzing the sufficiency of circumstantial 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.” State v. Al-Naseer , (quotati on omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view 5 of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the de fendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (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.” (quotation omitted).

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.”

-74 (Minn. 2010) (describing the appellate standard of review concerning appeals challenging the sufficiency of circumst antial evidence).

See State v. Al-Naseer, 8 (noting that the state is not required to remove all doubt, but only all reasonable doubt).

any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

(stating that the trier of fact is best positioned to determine credibility and weigh the evidence).

State v. Al-Naseer , d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).

In this second step, no deference is given to the jury’s verdict, Loving v. State , although we will not overturn a 12 verdict based on mere conjecture or speculation

The 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.”

d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (“[T]he trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.”); State v. Dickerson , (“[Appellate courts] accord great deference to the [district] court’s determinations [because] .

Instead, we consider the circ umstances as a whole to determine whether they form a “complete chain” that “leads so directly to th e guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonabl e doubt any reasonable infe rence other than guilt.”

Next, this court conducts an independent examination of “the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with rational hypotheses other than guilt.” -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted).

State v. Al–Naseer, -74 (Minn. 2010); (applying circumstantial-evidence test to sufficiency challenge on a terroristic -threats conviction), review denied (Minn. Mar.

(explaining that the state is not required to remove all doubt, but only all reasonable doubt).

(recognizing that trier of fact is in best position to determine credibility and weight of evidence).

(noting previous 5 application of circumstantial standard to element of premeditation, despite direct evidence establishing other elements of offense) ().

473 (Minn. 2010) (s tating that if an element of an offense was proved with circumstantial evidence, appellate courts analyze “whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt” (quotation omitted)).

(noting that the state is not required to remove all doubt, but only all reasonable doubt).

any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted ).

See Al-Naseer, 4-75 (Minn. 2010).

D E C I S I O N We review sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction with “heightened scrutiny.”

(holding that convictions based on circumstantial evidence recei ve heightened scrutiny upon appellate review).

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 standard “applies to any disputed element of [a] conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence.”

points to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory ot her than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Al-Naseer , , 473-74 (Minn. 2010) (setting forth the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review when an element of a conviction is proven with circumstantial evidence).

Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require “heightened scrutiny.”