Cited by

Moreover, the supreme court has also held that, “[e]ven if the act of recording, but not listening to, attorney-client phone conversations is an intrusion into the attorney-client relationship, such an intrusion does not automatically translate into a violation of a defendant’s right to counsel.” -34 (Minn. 2010).

In this step, we do not defer “to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” - 30 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

If a defendant seeks to invalidate a search warrant under Franks, the defendant must show that “(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted)

in the sack?’” The state maintains that this finding is inconsistent with the recording from the officer’s body-worn camera because the recording shows that the officer’s hand “is just resting on top of the sack without moving or manipulating the sack.” “We give great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not set them aside unless clearly erroneous.”

at 155-56; (considering misrepresentations and omissions under Franks framework).

“Instead, we must consider whether the circumstances presented are consistent with guilt and inconsistent, on the whole, with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” (quotation omitted).

9 B. The Reasonable Inferences The second step “is to examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” meaning that “all the circumstances proved must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” (quotations omitted).

Id.; (“[W]e do not review each circumstance proved in isolation.

” - 30 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted) .

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

We note, however, that the supreme court in Cooper did not apply the two-step circumstantial-evidence test discussed in Silvernail because Cooper predated the supreme court’s -30 (Minn. 2010).

Appellate courts “give great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not set them aside unless [they are] clearly erroneous.”

(stating that a Franks challenge requires the defendant to show that a search-warrant application “includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause”).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Andersen

( stating that “[j]uries are generally in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony” (quotation omitted) ); (deferring to the jury’s

–91 (Minn. 1999) (stating that certain allegations in a warrant affidavit lacked context to establish their relevance, raising “a genuine concern” that they were “stale or simply irrelevant,” but that other factual allegations were sufficient to establish probable cause); (holding that a warrant application established probable cause supporting the warrant’s issuance, as alleged omissions were not material to the probable-cause determination; in other words, including the “omissions would have n

Witness credibility is for the jury to determine because “[j]uries are generally in the best position to weigh the credibility of the evidence and thus determine which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give their testimony.” 332-33 (Minn. 2010) (concluding circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of first-degree murder); (deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations in identifying the circumstances proved).

–32 (Minn. 2010) (citing the defendant’s repeated false statements to police as evidence of guilt).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [appellate courts] are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

To 11 invalidate a warrant on these grounds, the defendant must show that: “(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

At this step, “we give no deference to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” –30 6 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

During this step, we do not defer to the factfinder’s “choice between reasonable inferences.” -30 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).