Cited by

The first step requires us to “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the jury’s verdict,” which results in “a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-40 (Minn. 2016); (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).

In doing so, we “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.’” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017) ().

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

The appellate court “independently consider[s] the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole.”

“[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).

-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying the circumstantial-evidence standard of review in a constructive possession case).

(explaining that “[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)).

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).