Cited by

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

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” 5 The district court did not specifically rule on Abiyev’s motion.

(quotation omitted); see also State v. Harris , (stating that “circumstantial evidence always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence”).

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

“[D]irect evidence is [e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

15 “Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can 3 infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

., if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” 8 (quotations omitted).

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

Direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, 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.” (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, this court “disregard[s] evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.”

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”

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).

Direct 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 , (quotation omitted).

It is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (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 observation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 699 (11th.

the credibility of such a witness is, nevertheless, for the [factfinder] and [it] may believe or disbelieve [the] testimony as to other facts.” (reaffirming that the circumstantial-evidence standard of review protects the [factfinder’s] “unique position” to determine witness credibility).

State v. Harris , -601 (Minn. 2017).

This requires us to “winnow down the evidence presented at trial by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the [fact -finder’s] verdict, resulting in a subset of facts that constitute the circumstances proved.” (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).

Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd.

if 9 true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

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

The circumstances proved “must be consistent with a reasonable inference that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”

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

(“To convict [a defendant] of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the [s]tate was required to prove in relevant part that he knowingly possessed the firearm.”).

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).

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

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

To do so, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial” to a “subset of facts” that is consistent with the jury’s verdict and “disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” -01 (Minn. 2017).

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

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

“Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.”