Cited by

“The second step is to determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (q uotations omitted).

We have repeatedly stated that “[t]he law is clear in Minnesota that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be challenged for the first time on appeal.” ().

(explaining that we give no deference to the factfinder’s choice between reasonable inferences).

In doing so, we assume that “the jury resolv ed any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.”

In doing so, we must “assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.”

(identifying planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing as relevant to premeditation); (same); Leake, d at 321 (identifying the defendant’s actions before and after the murder as relevant to premeditation).

(quotations and citations omitted).

“The second step is to determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

“The second step is to determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

d at 734; (characterizing the defendant’s retrieval of the murder weapon from one room and bringing it to another as planning activity); (holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation where the defendant arrived at the murder scene with a load

eview for circumstantial evidence requires an appellate court, first, to “identify the circumstances proved” and, second, to “examine independently the reasonableness of the inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved” and “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotations omitted).

“When reviewing jury instructions for error, [an appellate court] review[s] the instructions in their entirety to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.”