Cited by

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

“[ D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

See State 6 v. Harris, (contrasting direct and circumstantial evidence).

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

In contrast, circumstantial evidence is “ evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

In doing so, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the [fact-finder ’s] verdict,” which results in “a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (quotation omitted).

“The first step requires us to ‘winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,’ which results in ‘a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.’” Firkus, d at 478 (d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017)).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

4 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

“The first step requires us to ‘winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,’ which results in ‘a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.’” Firkus, d at 478 ().

Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” .

See State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

at 479 (acknowledging that “our precedent does not permit [an appellate court] to re-weigh the evidence and sit, in essence, as a 13th juror” (quotation omitted); (“As the fact finder, the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”) ).

See State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

25, 2026) (stating that we apply a circumstantial -evidence standard if the state relies solely on circumstantial evidence to prove the elements of premeditation or intent to kill); State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of crimi nal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” 11 (quotation omitted).

The first step requires us to “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,” which results in “a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-40 (Minn. 2016); (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).

In doing so, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute ‘the circumstances proved.’” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017) ().

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotations omitted).

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

The appellate court “independently consider[s] the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole.”

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying the circumstantial-evidence standard of review in a constructive possession case).

(explaining that “[d] irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).