Cited by

(applying heightened standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim when state presented both direct and circumstantial evidence to obtain conviction).

First, we “identify the circumstances proved … deferr[ing] to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved.” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

-99 (Minn. 2013) (“[I]n determining circumstances proved, we consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”).

(declining to resolve a dispute over whether the direct - or circumstantial-evidence standard applied because “even under the more favorable [circumstantial-evidence] standard proposed by [defendant], the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict”).

The court then 5 determines “whether the circumsta nces proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted) .

State v. Silvernail , 8-99 (Minn. 2013).

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

“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”

In reviewing a case based o n circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved and then “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted) .

Put another way, “we consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict.”

see also State v. Harris, __ N.W.2d __, __, 2017 WL 2265434, at *2-5 (Minn. May 24, 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard).

(quotations omitted); (“[We] construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” (quotation omitted)).

-72 (Minn. 2016) (considering whether “[w]hen viewed as a whole, the circumstances proved supported] a rational inference that Robertson was the shooter”); (explaining that “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole”).

When the state’s case rests largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, a court must apply the circumstantial-ev idence analysis described in State v. Silvernail , -99 (Minn. 2013), -74 (Minn. 2010).

“The first step is to identify the circumstances proved.”

When a 8 conviction dep ends on circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court applies a two -step analysis that first identifies the circumstances that are proved and then determines whether the circumstances proved “are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted)

-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted); (reiterating and applying two-step test).

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