Cited by

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).

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).