Cited by

Appellate courts review “a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion.”

But an express waiver is not required; instead, “[a] waiver may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.”

See, –26 (Minn. 2015) (determining that 48 stab wounds to vital parts of the victim’s body supported premeditation); (determining that the use of an industrial grade knife to inflict “precise wounds to vital areas” supported premeditation).

DECISION I. Gonzales-Rivas contends that the district court’s “refusal to give any instruction regarding the use of interpreters was an abuse of discretion.” This court reviews “a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for abuse of discretion.”

See Bellcourt, d at 273; Russell, d at 113; Peou, d at 478; Darris, d at 239; State v. Fox , –24 (Minn. 2015); Webster , d at 784

But jury instructions are erroneous if they “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Fox

To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty” and must also be “inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (emphasis added).

e. 15 After identification of the circumstances proved by the state, the second step of the circumstantial-evidence test requires us to determine whether “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances pr oved as a whole [are] consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

When appl ying that standard of review, this court considers whether the circumstances proved are “consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any ra tional hypothesis except that of guilt.”

State v. Fox , (“If the police fully advise an accused of his Miranda rights, and the accused indicates that he understands his rights and nevertheless gives an incriminating statement, the state is deemed to have met its burden of proving that the accused k

One of the State’s witnesses testified that Fox told him that “he was having problems with [Baker],” and that “she gave him an ultimatum.” 1 A full recitation of the facts is found in State v. Fox (Fox I), −13 (Minn. 2015), cert.

A “verdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the [s]tate’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

( holding that evidence was sufficient to support first-degree murder conviction even though murder weapon was never recovered); Stein, d at 719 (rejecting similar argument because none of the missing evidence established “a coherent alternative hypothesis” that rebutted the evidence demo

State v. Fox , , 215, n.1 (Minn. 2015).

See State v. Fox , (declining to address claims related to an appella nt’s conditions of confinement because such claims a re more appropriately raised i n a petition for habeas corpus relief or in a civil action under 42 U.S.C.

We have frequently upheld the use of that instruction, most recently in State v. Fox , , 222 (Minn. 2015).

A “verdict will not be overturned if the fact-finder, upon application of the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.”

n.1 (Minn. 2015) (“[O]ur precedent has made clear that even if the district court applied an incorrect standard, such an error is not reversible if the facts support the same result under the correct standard.”).

State v. Fox , , 223 (Minn. 2015).

Second, we must determine whether “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole [are] consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

Second, the court must determine that “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole [are] consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

Under that standard, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact- finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.”

“To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

An appellate court examining the sufficiency of the evidence “carefully examine[s] the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn fro m them would permit th e jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Fox , cert.

Under that standard, we “carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact- finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” cert.