Cited by

Because the state offered primarily circumstantial evidence of Bradley’s intent, we apply “heightened scrutiny” to review that circumstantial evidence.5 (“A state of mind generally is proved circumstantially .

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

A sta te of mind, such as intent, is “ generally proven through circumstantial evidence.” .

In assessing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.” -74 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted).

Convictions based on circumstantial evidence require “heightened scrutiny.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).

State v. Al-Naseer , (alteration in original) ().

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

Under the heightened-review standard, we must then determine if “there are no other reasonable rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.”

to make [him] an offer rather than [Abdelrahim] making one himself.” But we “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted).

(recognizing that “the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence”); (“The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder.”).

State v. Schnagl , (), review denied (Minn. Feb.

ne; and (12) the drugs were thrown out of Barker’s passenger -side window as he fled from polic e. Barker concedes that “these facts probably support a rational inference that he physically possessed the drugs in Minnesota.” For the evidence to be sufficient, “it must also be true that there are no other reasonable rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.”

-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circumstantial -evidence standard to individual elements of a criminal offense that were proved by circumstantia l evidence).

any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

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

(applying the circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of a criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circum stantial-evidence standard to 1 Hines initially alleged prosecutorial misconduct as an additional basis for relief, but later withdrew this argument.

(holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

State v. Al–Naseer , -75 (Minn. 2010).

See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).

“We will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted).

at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted )

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted)

Because an inferential step was required for the jury to conclude that Bentley knew of the DANCO based on this evidence, we apply the 4 circumstantial-evidence standard of review.1 - 75 (Minn. 2010) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of a criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

1 See State v. Al-Naseer , , 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.").

d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).

See State v. Al-Naseer , , 473-75 (Minn. 2010) (applying the circumstantial-evidence standard to individual elements of a criminal offense that were proved by circumstantial evidence).

warrants stricter scrutiny.”

” Sam, d at 831 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)

5 “A conviction based on circumstanti al evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted); -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard); (“[T]he heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence.