Cited by

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

“We review the sufficiency of the state’s circumstantial evidence de novo.”

“We review the sufficiency of the state’s circumstantial evidence de novo.”

“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted)

-75 (Minn. 2005) (stating that the test for a motion for judgment of acquittal is “whether the evidence is sufficient to present a fact question for the [fact-finder’s] determination”); (noting this court applies the same standard to challenges based on judgment of acquittal and based on sufficiency of the evidence).

5 “A conviction based on circumstanti al evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted); -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard); (“[T]he heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumsta

Consequently, the state must prove that Pogatchnik “exercised dominion and control over the contraband.” .

First, we “determine the circumstances proved, giving due deference to the fact-finder and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” (citing Silvernail, d at 599).

d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015).

(noting that , where appellant did not have exclusive possession of the vehicle, the presence of contraband alone was not sufficient to establish appellant possessed it).

warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted); see State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard).

“[W]hen a district court considers a motion for judgment of acquittal, it must apply the same standard appellate courts use to review challenges to sufficiency of the evidence.” 4

Casey emphasizes that the state had to prove he was “consciously exercising dominion and control of the methamphetamine at the time of his arrest.” where we reversed Sam’s conviction for 8 possessing methamphetamine with a firearm enhancement after we deemed the circumstantial evidence insufficient to support his conviction.

See, e.g., Silvernail, d at 600 (finding no rational inference inconsistent with guilt); (finding that a rational inference inconsistent with guilt existed).

warrants heightened scrutiny.’” (quoting Smith, d at 770).

“[A] conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances proved be consistent with an appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other rational or reasonable hypothesis.” d 825, 833 (Minn. App. 2015).

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state introduced insufficient direct evidence); see also Salyers, d at 160-61 (applying ordinary standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence); -33 (Minn. App. 2015) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state did not introduce direct evidence).

-10 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state 6 introduced insufficient direct evidence); see also Salyers, d at 160-61 (applying ordinary standard of review because state introduced sufficient direct evidence); -33 (Minn. App. 2015) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard of review because state did not introduce direct evidence).