Cited by

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

C ircumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in di spute existed or did not exist,” and 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).

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 , (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in disput e existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] 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.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

To preserve the jury’s credibility determinations, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict.” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).

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

circumstantial evidence, we apply a two-step analysis to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence, first identifying the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’ s verdict” in deference to the jury’ s credibility determinations, and then independently considering the “reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.” -601 (Minn. 2017).

Under the circumstantial - evidence test, appellate courts “identify the circumstances proved and independently consider the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those circumstances, when viewed as a whole.” State v. Harris

Additionally, “[a] defendant may possess an item jointly with another person.” State v. Harris , .

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

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

State v. Harris , –601 (Minn. 2017).

When the challenged conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we first identify the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,” then independently consider the “reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.” State v. Harris , -01 (Minn. 2017).

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).

d 592, 601 -03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial -evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

State v. Harris , , 601 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris , (Minn. 3 The state also notes that there is direct evidence that supports the conviction, such as Curfman’s testimony that he saw Kowalzyk’s “glossy eyes,” smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from Kowalzyk, and Kowalzyk’s admission that he had a couple of drinks

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 , (quotation omitted).

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

“As the fact finder, th e jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted) .

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

State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017).

We affirm only if the reasonable inferences from the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and “inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Second, we independently consider whether a reasonable inference of non-guilt can be drawn from the 1 The supreme court has defined ci rcumstantial evidence as “evid ence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or di d not exist.” (quotation omitted).

600-01 (Minn. 2017) (reaffi rming the circumstantial-eviden ce standard).