Cited by

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

d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris , , 600 (Minn. 2017).

The state asserts that the heightened standard of review does not apply in this case because appellant’s possession of the methamphetamine was proven by a combination of direct and circ umstantial 7 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).

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).

(stating that the jury is in the best position to determine witness credibility and may accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony).

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

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

-06 (Minn. 2017) (providing that when the evidence at issue is direct evidence, the heightened standard of review does not apply); (“Testimony provided by a witness, concerning what the witness saw or heard , is considered direct evidence.”).

State v. Harris , When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, as it is here, stricter scrutiny is given to this court’s review of a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.

However, we note that the state was required to prove that the defendant “knowingly possessed a firearm ” or “consciously or knowingly exercised dominion and control over it.”

See State v. Harris , (stating that direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation).

d 592, 598 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris , , 598-601 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris, 4 -601 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris , -601 (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).

(holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

See State v. Harris , (“As the fact finder, the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.”).

See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).

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