Cited by

The state must prove three elements: “(i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for h[er]self or someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.” d 911, 923 (Minn. App. 2025), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Terminology, Minn. R. Jud.

“Justice requires that the judicial process be fair and that it appear to be fair; it necessarily follows that a presiding judge must be impartial and must appear to be impartial.” State v. Pratt, 10

“Impartiality” is the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.” (quotation omitted).

18 circumstances.” n.8 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

verdicts based on circumstantial evidence.”

“Impartiality” is defined as the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.” (quoting Terminology, Code of Judicial Conduct) .

“The elements of theft by swindle are: (i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or someone else possession of the propert y; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.”

“Impartiality” is defined as the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in 12 considering issues that may come before a judge.” (quotation omitted).

13 objective, unbiased layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances.” n.8 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

29, 2004).1 “The Code [of Judicial Conduct] defines ‘impartial’ and ‘impartiality’ as the ‘absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before a judge.’ Terminology, Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Appellant contends that this court reviews the district court’s denial de novo, citing State 16 v. Pratt

d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the supreme court had considered the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” when determining the circumstances proved).

possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.”

’” n.8 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Jacobs, d at 753).

The supreme court has identified three essential elements of theft by swindle: “(i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to th e swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant’s act was a swindle.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd.

(“The trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.”).

A reasonable inference cannot be based on “mere conjecture.”

A “reasonable inference” cannot be based on “mere conjecture.”

Additionally , a “reasonable inference” is not based on “mere conjecture.”

But a judge is disqualified for lack of impartiality under rule 2.11(A) if a “reasonable examiner ,” from the perspective of an objective “layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances,” would “question the judge's impartiality.” & n. 8 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[j]ustice requires that the judicial process be fair and th at it appear to be fair; it necessarily follows that a presiding judge must be impartial and must appear to be impartial.” 8 (Minn. 2012) (emphasis added).

“[W]e determine whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the f acts in the record would re asonably support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

"The elements of theft by swindle are: (i) the owner of the property gave up possession of the property due to the swindle; (ii) the defendant intended to obtain for himself or *111 someone else possession of the property; and (iii) the defendant's act was a swindle.”

(noting that sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are inconsistent with any rational theory of innocence).