Cited by

State v. 2 Olson also argues that we must review his unlawful-possession-of- a-firearm conviction under the circumstantial-evidence standard because the jury acquitted him of the assault 5 Silvernail

In doing so, 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.” (quotations omitted).

Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt” and “give no deference to the fact[-]finder’s choice between reasonable inferences.” (quotations omitted).

Appellate courts consider only the evidence consistent with the verdict “because the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.”

In doing so, 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.” (quotations omitted).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved.”

d 594, 598 -99 (Minn. 2013) (stating that when an appellate court reviews the state’s circumstantial evidence, an appellate court first identifies the circumstances proved and second, determines whether the circumstances proved are consistent wit h guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt)

Second, the appellate court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” 13 (quotations omitted).

First, appellate courts must identify the circumstances proved by the evidence and “defer to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted).

Then we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Second, we analyze “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

(quotation omitted) (summarizing the Lindsey factors).

Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

In other words, this step requires that appellate courts “consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.” d 594, 599 (Minn. 2013).

State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013).

Under this test, we first “identify the circumstances proved.”

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

( ) (stating that the district court is “ required to apply the Al-Naseer/Silvernail analysis” to decide a motion for judgment of acquittal in a circumstantial-evidence case).

Appellate courts consider only the evidence consistent with the verdict “because the jury is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.”