Cited by

6 permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (Stras, J., concurring).

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

When reviewing convictions in which an element rests on circumstantial evidence, we follow a two-step approach, first identifying the circumstances proved, considering only those that are consistent with the verdict, and second determining whether those circumstances proved are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” –99 5 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

Under this second step, the court must “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 consider 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.” (quotations omitted).

(assessing whether a closure occurred by considering: whether the courtroom was cleared of all spectators; whether the trial remained open to the general public and the press; whether there was a period of the trial in which members of the public were absent; and whether the defendant, the defend

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013) .

d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013).

( ; ) (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).

Unlike circumstantial evidence, direct evidence is evidence that, “if believed, directly proves the existence of a fact without requiring any inferences by the fact-finder.” State v. Silvernail , (Stras, J., concurring).

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

at 598; -99 (Minn. 2013).

Second, we consider 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).