Cited by

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.

State v. Al-Naseer , , 473 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

State 6 v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

(recognizing that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires heightened scrutiny).

warrants heightened scrutiny.”

State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a 4 conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

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

Hart suggests that the heightened standard of review that applies to circumstantial- evidence cases is appropriate here because “the state’s case is largely, if not entirely, based on circumstantial evidence.” (explaining that a conviction based on circ umstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010) .

(applyi ng circumstantial-evidence test when there is no direct evidence of individual’s state of mind); d 469, 474 (Minn. 2010) (holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

“[I]f any one or more circumstances found proved are inconsistent with guilt, or consistent with innocence, then a reasonable doubt as to guilt arises.” (quotation omitted).

In other words, 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.” ().

(stating that knowledge is generally proved by circumstantial evidence), review denied (Minn. Feb.

In general, this court will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence “on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quoting State v. Lahue , ).

“[I]f any one or more circumstances found proved are inconsistent with guilt, or consistent with innocence, then a reasonable doubt as to guilt arises.” (quotation omitted).

d 469, 473-74 (Minn. 2010).

But a conviction based on circumstantial evidence will not be r eversed “on the basis of mere conjecture.”

State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).

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

(clarifying that heightened scrutiny applies both to cases in which all of the evidence is circumstantial and to cases in which only one element of the offense is proved by circumstantial evidence); (recognizing that because intent is a s

-75, 478-79 (Minn. 2010).

When the state’s case rests largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, a court must apply the circumstantial-ev idence analysis described in State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013), -74 (Minn. 2010).

warrants heightened scrutiny.” d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).

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