Cited by

Intent to sell a controlled substance is typically proved by circumstantial evidence, “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute exi sted or did not exist.” (quotation omitted)

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

[and] disregard[ing] evidence that is inconsi stent with the jury’s verdict.” 600-01 (Minn. 2017).

Even under the stricter review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence, –01 (Minn. 2017), it is clear that the facts belie Abikar’s argument.

” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Harris , , 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.” State v. Harris , (citations omitted).

“To sustain a conviction b ased on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Harris , , 599 (Minn. 2017).

but that case is distinguishable.

5 “A conviction based on circumstanti al evidence warrants heightened scrutiny.” (quotation omitted); -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard); (“[T]he heightened scrutiny applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence.

See, e.g. , State v. Harris , , 598 (Minn. 2017) ("For approximately a century, we have applied a separate standard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence."); Bernhardt v. State , , 477 (Minn. 2004) ("Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is

State 6 v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny).

See State v. Harris , , 599 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming the validity of the circumstantial-evidence standard of review as "the same today as it was when we decided [it] in 1928" and declining to consider it "outdated").

State v. Harris , –01 (Minn. 2017).

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

See State v. Harris , (describing how, in reviewing criminal convictions based on ci rcumstantial evidence, Minnesota appellate courts first identify the circumstances proved, and then determine whether the reasonable inferences from those circumstances are consis tent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hy

“In determining the circumstances proved, [appellate courts] disregard evidence tha t is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”

It is the role of the jury, not appellate courts, “to determine the credibility of the witnesses and 10 weigh the evidence before it.”

We first identify the circumstances proved at trial and “disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”

Circumstantial evidence is that “from wh ich the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed” and “alw ays requires an inferen tial step to prove a fact.” State v. Harris , (quotations and citations omitted).

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

State v. Harris , d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).

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

“To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” State v. Harris , (internal quotation omitted).

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

Appellate courts apply “a separate standard of review to challenges to the sufficiency of circum stantial evidence.” State v. 5 Harris

In contrast, “circumstantial evidence always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017).