Cited by

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

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

(noting that 3 At trial, the detective testified that he found a handgun in the back of the Jeep that contained ammunition, but the jury found the state failed to prove Ruiz possessed the firearm.

The supreme court defines circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

First, we identify the circumstances proved by “winnow[ing] ‘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.’ ” Gilleylen, d at 275 (–01 (Minn. 2017)).

(“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 any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”).

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).

“[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 “[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).

In doing so, we independently examine “the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.”

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the fact[-]finder 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.” State v. Harris , (quotation and alteration omitted).

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

(“[W]e are bound to disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict when identifying the circumstances proved”) ().

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

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).

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).

Sufficient Circumstantial Evidence of Busse’s Intent Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that it “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact.” (quotation omitted).

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

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).

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation.” d 592, 599 (quotation omitted).