Cited by

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

State v. Silvernail , (declining to resolve what standard applies when evidence includes both direct and circumstantial evidence); Harris, d at 610 (Lillehaug, J., dissenting) (noting that supreme court has not resolved this issue).

position to evaluate the credibility of the evidence.”

See State v. Silvernail , (determining the court “need not resolve the pa rties’ dispute regarding the standard of review because, even under the more favora ble standard proposed by [defendant], the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict”).

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

See State v. Silvernail , (Stras, J., concurring in part) (“[T]he ‘traditional standard’ applies when the direct evidence is sufficient to prove the disputed element.”).

-99 (Minn. 2013); State v. Andersen , -30 (Minn. 2010).

(quoting State v. Johnson, 217 N.W.

E.g., State v. Silvernail , (finding 37 circumstantial evidence sufficient to support first-degree premeditated murder conviction).

First, re viewing courts “iden tify the circumstances proved.” State v. Silvernail

We review convictions based on circumstantial evidence with particular scrutiny, , and apply a two -step analysis when reviewing the sufficiency of such evidence

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

d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013) (describing circumstantial-evidence standard of review).

We first identify the circumstances proved, then “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any ration al hypothesis except that of guilt.”

6 When the state relies on circumstantial evidence, appellate courts conduct a two - step inquiry that requires the reviewing court to determine: (1) “the circumstances proved,” and then (2) “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

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

d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013); see also State v. Harris , (defining circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the fact [-]finder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist”) (quotation omitted).

Although Beckman attempted to persuade the jury that he merely sipped beer before driving and “drank two small bottles” of whiskey only after he ran out of gas and left the car, we consider “only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”

d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013).

(“We need not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the standard of review because, even under the more favorable standard proposed by Silvernail, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Silvernail is guilty of first -degree premeditated murder.”).