Cited by

But “a search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (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 review the district court’s determination of guilt de novo based on its findings of fact, and we review its findings of fact for clear error, d 320, 334 (Minn. 2010).

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

d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (citing State v. Stein, 217 N.W.

“When a defendant seeks to invalidate a warrant, the two-prong Franks test requires a defendant to 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.” (quotations omitted).

This means the circumstances proved must be “consistent with 7 guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

When evaluating whether the circumstances proved are consistent with a rational hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with a rational hypothesis of innocence, we “do not review each circumstance proved in isolation.” d 320, 332 (Minn. 2010).

“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, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” (citations omitted).

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

The second step is to “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved; this includes inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we “give great 6 deference to a district court’s findings of fact.”

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

When evaluating whether the circumstances proved are consistent with a rational hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with a rational hypothesis of innocence, we “do not review each circumstance proved in isolation.”

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” d 320, 334 (Minn. 2010).

In doing so, we defer to the fact-finder’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” State v. Andersen , (quotation omitted).

“A search warrant is void, and the fruits 14 of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (quotations omitted); see also State v. Moore , (stating that “innocent or negligent misrepresentations will not invalidate a warrant”).

In doing so, it defers to the fact-finder’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

When a verdict relies on circumstantial evidence, “the circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

The second step is to “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved; this includes inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).