Cited by

Direct evidence is evidence that is “based on 6 personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

“Direct evidence is ‘[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.’” d 495, 501 (Minn. 2024) ().

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

“[D]irect 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, 6 (quotation omitted).

“[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).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, we “disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”

Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (Minn. 2 Based on Prowell’s arguments at trial, we understand this to be a reference to a marijuana cigarette.

“[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); see, (stating that, for murder conviction, defendant’s statement, “‘I want him dead,’ was direct evidence of her mens rea”).

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).

Appellate courts “resolv[e] all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict.”

Accordingly, “we disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury ’s verdict.”

The first step “requires an appellate 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.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

Next, we determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, giving “no deference to the jury’s choice between reasonable inferences.”

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

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotations omitted).

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

“[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 and alteration omitted).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation 21 and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

We “resolv[e] all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“[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).

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

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

4 infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

(stating that “we have made it clear, at least with respect to the felon-in-possession statute, that knowledge of the prohibited item is required”); (noting, in the context of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, that possession of a firearm by an ineligible person requires the State to prove, in relevant part, the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm); cf. Ndikum, d at 822.

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

“To sustain the conviction, the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, must be consistent with a reasonable inference that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with 8 any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

“[ 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).

., if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotations omitted).