Cited by

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.”

Direct evidence is “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” while circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotations omitted).

d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (stating that direct evidence “is based on personal knowledge or observation and .

“[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).

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

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” and, therefore, “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is that “from which the [jury] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed.” (quotation omitted).

“To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved as a whole must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

In State v. Harris , , 597–600 (Minn. 2017), we considered whether to depart from our standard of review when examining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and declined to do so.

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

This involves “winnow[ing] 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) (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).