Cited by

See State v. Silvernail , (stating appellate courts “assume that the jury believed the [s]tate’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses” (quotation omitted)).

Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quoting Palmer, d at 733).

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).

at 598; -99 (Minn. 2013).

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).

( (Stras, J., concurring)).

-99 (Minn. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence test to first- degree premeditated murder).

ess in han dling the gun , ( 7) Hassan’s apparel is consistent with the apparel of the second shooter, (8) Murray testified that based on the low resolution and lighting conditions, she would not expect the tufted pattern of Hassan’s jacket, the small white Nike logo, or a possible design feature on the shoes to be visible in the crime scene video , (9) Hassan’s 4 ( reasoning that motive to kill is circumstantial evidence of guilt).

Citing State v. Brown , 618 (Minn. 2012), Jackson observes that we have repeatedly urged that courtroom closures be done “carefully and sparingly.” He then asserts that the district courts have not listened, (Anderson, Paul H., J., dissenting), and State v. Taylor , (Page, J., dissenting).

State v. Silvernail , (Mi nn.

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

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).

Second, we consider whether the circumstances proved are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013).

State v. Silvernail , , 598 (Minn. 2013).

The second step requ ires this court to “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).

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.” State v. Silvernail , (quotation omitted).

“We review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole.”

at 473–74; d 594, 598–99 (Minn. 2013).

When an appellant claims that the state failed to satisfy its burden of proving the elements of a crime, an appellate court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

( (Stras, J., concurring)).