Cited by

Premeditation requires “some appreciable passage of time between a defendant’s formation of the intent to kill and the act of killing, and that during this time defendant deliberated about the act.” (emphasis omitted).

In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, we will not reverse “on the basis of mere conjecture.”

“The circumstantial evidence standard does not allow us to ‘analyze and parse each fact’ in a ‘piecemeal’ fashion to conclude that a hypothesis is reasonable.” ().

“The circumstantial evidence standard does not allow us to ‘analyze and parse each fact’ in a ‘piecemeal’ fashion to conclude that a hypothesis is reasonable.” ().

“The circumstantial evidence standard does not allow us to ‘analyze and parse each fact’ in a ‘piecemeal ’ fashion to conclude that a hypothesis is reasonable.” ( ).

See, (“[T]he number of times the defendant used the murder weapon and the number of wounds inflicted are relevant to an assessment of premeditation.”); d 400, 413 (Minn. 2016) (observing that 11 inflicting wounds to vital organs supports an inference of premeditation).

Minnesota Statutes section 609.18 (2022) defines “premeditation” as “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” We have previously held that premeditation “does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation, nor does it demand that a specific time period elapse for deliberation.”

On the issue of premeditation, we have held that “shooting a prone victim” leads to an inference of premeditation, “evidence showing that the defendant inflicted wounds to the victim’s vital organs may support an inference of premeditation,” “[a] single shot squarely in the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took careful aim at the victim,” “[m]ultiple gunshots are indicative of premeditation,” State v. Cooper

d 400, 415 (Minn. 2016).

“P remeditation does not require proof of extensive planning or preparation, nor does it demand that a specific time period elapse for deliberation.”

In assessing the circumstances proved and the inferences that may be drawn from them, we consider the evidence “as a whole and not as discrete and isolated facts.” State v. Cox

Next, we identify the rea sonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved when viewed “as a whole and not as discrete and isolated facts.” State v. Cox

Premeditation does not “require proof of extensive planning or preparation, nor does it demand that a specific time period elapse for deliberation.”

In the absence of direct evidence, premeditation may be inferred from “planning activity, motive, the nature of the killing , and a defendant’s actions following the killing.”

“When the State relies entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove an element of the offense, we use a two-step test to determine whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the element.”

See State v. Cox , , 413 (Minn. 2016) ("[W]e have concluded that evidence of even a short pause between shots may support an inference of premeditation.") Second, A.M.'s statement was more probative in establishing premeditation than any other piece of evidence admitted or reasonably procurable.

See State v. Cox , , 413 (Minn. 2016) ("[E]vidence showing that the defendant inflicted wounds to the victim's vital organs may support an inference of premeditation.").

State v. Cox , , 412 (Minn. 2016).

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

“‘Premeditation’ means ‘to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.18 (2014)).

“[A]n inference of premeditation may be supported by several categories of evidence, including planning activity, motive, the nature of the [attempted] killing, and a defendant’s actions following the [attempted] killing.” (citations omitted).