Cited by

“As the fact finder, the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it” and the jury may “accept part and reject part of a witness’s testimony.” (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 [fact -finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

Direct Evidence “[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.” (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).

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

A conviction may be based on direct evidence, which “is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or 4 presumption.” (quotation omitted).

McCaskill’s conviction is based on circumstantial evidence—“evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (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).

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

Under the circumstantial-evidence test, the defense’s proposed inference must lead to a rational hypothesis “inconsistent with guilt,” or, stated differently, a “rational hypothesis of innocence,” d 659, 669 (Minn. 2011).

However, and to argue that Minnesota courts have read a “knowing” mens rea into section 624.713.

(“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation.” (Quotation omitted)).

-03 (Minn. 2017); (stating that “heightened scrutiny 8 applies to any disputed element of the conviction that is based on circumstantial evidence”).

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

To convict appellant of possessing a firearm while ineligible, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “in relevant part[,] [appellant] knowingly possessed the firearm.”

We “assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (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.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist” and “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” (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.’ ” (alteration in original) ( n.4 (Minn. 3 When viewed in a light most factorable to the verdict, the record also supports the conclusion that the night before the assault, Jones told K.S.

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

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

This 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).

7 (noting that 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 [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).