Cited by

5 Having identified the circumstances proved, we next “consider the inferences that might be drawn from those circumstances, to determine if there are any rational inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.”

(recognizing that arson convictions often rest upon circumstantial evidence because there are typically no witnesses at the scene when the fire is discovered).

when evaluating a finding of “other serious bodily harm.” (concluding that the following injuries constituted other serious bodily harm: swelling in 2 Aleman claims the district court relied on circumstantial evidence to find great bodily harm, so his conviction should be subjected to “heightened scrutiny.”

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 guilt.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Al–Naseer, –74 (Minn. 2010).

3 the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” (quotation omitted); (stating that, when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, the same standard of review applies to court trials as to jury trials).

“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).

When analyzing 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).

(recognizing that “the trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence”); (stating that “[t]he factfinder is the exclusive judge of witness credibility”), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010).

State v. Al–Naseer, Andersen, d at 330.

Nelson argues that the appropriate standard is “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.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

any reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Al– Naseer