Cited by

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.”

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

See State v. Harris , (witness testimony), d 29, 40 (Minn. 2024) (surveillance videos).

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires a fact- finder to “infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

Second, we independently consider the reasonable 2 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist,” whereas direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotations omitted).

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

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

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

(defining circumstantial evidence “as evidence from which a factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist”).

“[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).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (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).

“[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 personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

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

-01 (Minn. 2017) (describing circumstantial-evidence standard).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist”; “[i]n contrast, direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (emphases added) (quotations omitted).

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

“[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 personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” State v. Harris, 6 (quotation omitted).

Direct evidence “is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a 5 fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

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

“A defendant may possess an item jointly with another person.”