Cited by

This heightened standard of review requires us to first identify the ci rcumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of thes e circumstances,” and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that migh t be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent w ith a hypothesis other than guilt.” State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).

Generally, when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we “conduct[] ‘a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction,’ is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” ().

State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).

3(c) (2016); Vlahos v. R&I Constr., Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2004); State v. Porte , n.1 (Minn. App. 2013).

ed with another , that drug paraphernalia was found in box with papers bearing defendant’s name, and that defendant had prick marks on his arm); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, (affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana was found in closet of bedroom where defendant had frequently stayed as house guest and had left his belongings); - 09 (Minn. App. 2013) (affirming conviction based on evidence that cocaine was found in center glove compartment of vehicle that defendant had bee

“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.” State v. Porte , (quoting State v. Breaux , ).

“When considering a claim of insuffici ent evidence, this court conducts a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” (quotation omitted).

We first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).

review denied (Minn. June 16, 2015).

We first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance 3 of the proof of these circumstances .” (quotations omitted).

“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.” - 81 (Minn. 1986) (concluding that the eviden ce was sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of cocaine, despite his girlfriend’s testimony that it was hers, when the cocaine was found on the ground at a car crash, inches from defend

State v. Porte , (quotation omitted).

Deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and assuming that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary,” we determine that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant’s first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.

–13 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that if the state does not make harmless error argument, this court is not required to undergo harmless error analysis but may do so under certain circumstances).

Heightened scrutiny is a two-step process requiring the reviewing court to first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances.” We then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted).

at 800; 308 (Minn. App. 2013) (concluding that jurors could find Porte guilty of the controlled- substance offenses if they believed either that Porte possessed the crack cocaine alone or jointly with R.M.).

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence test when direct evidence by itself is insufficient to prove disputed element).

ng the reviewing court to first “identify the circumstances proved” and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that 4 might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted); Al-Naseer, d at 473-74, 477 (quotation omitted).

Therefore, “we must 7 consider the state’s circumstantial evidence, which requires that we engage in the type of heightened scrutiny that is appropriate for circumstantial evidence.” review denied (Minn. June 16, 2015).

“When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court conducts a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” d 303, 307 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted).

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence receives heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]f the state introduced direct evidence on each element of an offense, [appellate courts do] not apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”

d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013).

Heightened scrutiny is a two-step process requiring the reviewing court to first identify the circumstances proved and defer to the jury’s “acceptance of the proof of these circumstances,” and then “examine independently the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved,” including “inferences consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotations omitted); Al-Naseer, d at 473- 74, 477 (quotation omitted).