Cited by

“Under the circumstantial-evidence standard, [appellate courts ] apply a two -step analysis.”

(stating that the level of scrutiny a reviewing court applies depends on whether the elements of an offense are supported by direct or circumstantial evidence).

But if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence—or “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist,” Harris, d at 599 (quotation omitted), then we apply a two-step analysis, -99 (Minn. 2013).

After identifying the circumstances proved, the reviewing court next determines whether those circumstances are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (-06 (Minn. 2013) (Stras, J., 7 concurring)) (applying a direct-evidence test first to determine sufficiency when the state offered direct and circumstantial evidence of a disputed element).

(declining to resolve which standard of review applied because the evidence was sufficient under either standard).

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved.”

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