Cited by

During this first step, a ppellate courts “consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict” and “assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence.” State v. Stein , (quotation omitted).

Caselaw explains that the fact-finder is “in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.”

(explaining that the supreme court need 4 Not every assertion that a constitutional right has been violated makes it so.

Appellate courts “ consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict” and “assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

After identifying the circumstances proved, we identify “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved when viewed as a whole and not as discrete and isolated facts.” Segura, d at 155

” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013) .

At step two, we independently “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

Under the circumstantial-evidence standard of review, we first identify the circumstances proved, “defer[ring] to the [fact-finder’s] acceptance of the proof of [the] circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

In identifying the circumstances proved, we 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.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved.”

At the second step, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

6 circumstances proved.”

In identifying the circumstances proved, we 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.” d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citation omitted).

“In identifying the circumstances proved, we 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.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

Under the circumstantial- evidence standard of review, we first identify the circumstances proved, “defer[ring] to the [fact-finder’s] acceptance of the proof of [the] circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” State v. Silvernail, 8 -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved.”

Under the circumstantial-evidence standard of review, we first identify the circumstances proved, “defer[ring] to the [fact-finder’s] acceptance of the proof of [the] circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

(analyzing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue under the “more favorable” circumstantial-evidence standard).

-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted).

“[T]he jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence even in cases based on circumstantial evidence.” State v. Silvernail , 9 (Minn. 2013).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved.”

We first “identify the circumstances proved.”

Appellate courts “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.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

At step two, we independently “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” (quotations omitted).

Vialard’s reliance on the banner is not persuasive because we “review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

A fact-finder is in “the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.”