Cited by

However, to do so, 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.” State v. Anderson

State v. Andersen , –30 (Minn. 2010).

12 When “reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, our first task is to identify the circumstances proved.” Al -Nasser, d at 473 () (internal quotation marks omitted).

In doing so, the re viewing court must defer “to the [finder of fact’s] acceptance of the pr oof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circ umstances proved by the State.” State v. Andersen , (quotation omitted).

(citing State v. Andersen , ).

supported his motion with (1) a Minneapolis Rental Dwelling License indicating that the property was licensed for two dwelling units, (2) paper ma ilings, some 1 See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674 (1978); (stating that defendant seeking to invalidate search warrant must demonstrate that “(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2) the statemen t was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted)

(citing State v. Andersen , -30 (Minn. 2010)).

First, the appellate court must “identify the circumstance s proved” at trial, deferring “to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstan ces proved by the State.” State v. Andersen , d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (quotations omitted ).

(citing State v. Andersen , ).

First, the appellate court must “identify the circumstances proved” at trial, deferring “to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejecti on of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” State v. Andersen

The two -prong Franks test requires the defendant to show (1) that “the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth”; and (2) that “the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted).

-99 (Minn. 2013); State v. Andersen , -30 (Minn. 2010).

Even so, we will not “break the evidence into discrete pieces in an effort to establish that, when viewed in isolation, these evidentiary fragments support a reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.” State v. Andersen

(quotation and citations omitted).

(citing State v. Andersen , ).

(discussing misrepresentations and omissions related to probable cause to search residence).3 We review determinations of materiality de novo and findings on deliberateness or recklessness for clear error.

Following Franks, courts require the defendant to bear the burden of proving both parts of the following two -prong t est: (1) that the affiant “deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) that “the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (d 373, 390 (Minn. 2001)).

See State v. Andersen , (“The [s]t ate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of removing all reasonable doubt.”).

In doing so, the reviewing court must defer 3 “to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” (quotation omitted).

20 v. Andersen, –30 (Minn. 2010).

But, “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Andersen , (quotation omitted).

State v. Andersen , d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010).

d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010).

1 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[w]hen 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.” State v. Andersen , (quotation omitted).

In doing so, the reviewing court must defer “to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State .” (quotation omitted).

We will not disturb the district court’s findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous.” (“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, 6 on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”).

In making this determination, “we do not review each circumstance proved in isolation.” State v. Andersen

Andersen v. State (Andersen I), d 320, 323 (Minn. 2010).

A finding is “clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence , [an appellate court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Andersen

(s tating that appellate courts “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture” and noting that “[t]he [s]tate does not have the burden of removing all doubt, but of 10 removing all reasonable doubt”).

“Stated another way, the circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” State v. Andersen

“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.” State v. Andersen , (quotation omitted).

-61 (Minn. 2008); see also State v. Andersen , d 320, 330 (Minn. 2010) (“[W]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted)).