Cited by

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).

“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) .