Cited by

-03 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring) (citing cases).

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (- 06 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring)); (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state did not introduce direct evidence of possession of firearm).

We apply a two-step analysis when reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: (1) we identify the circumstances proved; and (2) we then “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

(declining to resolve a similar dispute regarding the appropriate standard of review, concluding that even under the “more favorable” circumstantial-evidence standard, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction).

the supreme court declined to resolve the parties’ similar dispute about the appropriate standard of review, concluding that even under the “more favorable” circumstantial-evidence standard, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

In conducting this examination, we first “identify the circumstances proved,” deferring “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 4 [s]tate.” (quoting Andersen, d at 329).

n.11 (Minn. 2004); (Stras, J., concurring in part).

with the purpose of terrorizing her.” In applying the circumstantial evidence standard, we employ a two-step analysis to (1) identify the circumstances proved and (2) determine whether those circumstances “are 5 consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

n.2 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., concurring in part) (observing “the critical distinction between a reasonable inference drawn from the 5 circumstances proved and the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses” and concluding that “when [witness] recounted [defendant]’

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 [s]tate.” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted); n.2 (Minn. App. 2013) (noting that we evaluate the jury’s likely determinations from their guilty verdict when reviewing the circumstances proved) review denied (Minn. Oct.

“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”

But “[w]e give no deference to the fact finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” (quotations omitted).

evidence context, the Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the state’s case is based largely, or entirely, on circumstantial evidence, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction if and only if “no other reasonable, rational inferences [exist] that are inconsistent with guilt.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013).