Cited by

“We give no deferen ce to the [fact-finder’s] choice between reasonable inferences at this second step.”

(“To establish that a defendant was consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control over a firearm at the time in question, the State must prove more than the defendant’s mere proximity to the firearm.”).

In contrast, ci rcumstantial evidence is 5 “evidence from which the factfinde r can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

The first step “ requires an ap pellate court to 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.’”

warrants heightened scrutiny.” State v. Sam , (quotation omitted); see State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial-evidence standard).

(defining direct evidence as evidence that “proves a fact without inference or presumption”).

683, 684 (1928), and the Minnesota Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this standard, (“[W]e take this opportunity to reaffirm what we have already stated about the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”).

State v. Harris , –601 (Minn. 2017) .