Cited by

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

See State v. Harris , (noting that d irect 8 v. Porte

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

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

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

Direct eviden ce is “evidence that is ba sed on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a f act without inference or presumption.” (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted).

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

5 To convict Morson, the state was required to prove that he constructively possessed the gun found in his vehicle by “knowingly exercising dominion and control over it.” See State v. Harris , .1 Morson argues defense counsel conceded that Morson knew the gun was in his vehicle, and thereby conceded constructive possession, in the following segment of closing argument: And then, finally, the State has suggested that somehow that because Mr. Morson didn’ t use the word gun that he was

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

See State v. Harris , (defining direct evidence).

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

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

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

The state may prove possession “through evidence of actual or constructive possession.” (M inn.

Circumstantial evidence, in contrast, is “evidence from which the factfinde r can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

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

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

At this stage, we defer “to the jury’s accepta nce of the [s]tate’s evidence and its rejection 2 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

(“ In determining the circumstances proved, we disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”).

Direct t estimonial evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”

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

d 594, 598-99 (Minn. 2013); see also State v. Harris , (defining circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the fact [-]finder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist”) (quotation omitted).

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

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

In contrast, direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (quotations omitted).

See State v. Harris , (explaining that d irect evidence is “based on personal knowledge or observation” and “if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”).

-01 (Minn. 2017) (quotation and citations omitted).

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

In identifying the circumstances proved, 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.” (quotation omitted).

“[D]irect evidence is [e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris , (second alteration in original) (quotation omitted).