Cited by

“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).

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

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist,” and it “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact.” (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).

First, we “winnow 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.’ ” (citation 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.” (quotation omitted).

see also Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd.

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

The state may prove such possession “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).

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

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

In doing 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).

if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption,” the supreme court has defined circumstantial evidence as evidence from which the jury “can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotations omitted).

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

d 592, 598 (Minn. 2017).

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

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).

“We have defined circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.’” State v. Harris , (citations 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.” (quotation omitted).

The supreme court has defined circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (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 , (quotations omitted).

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

d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).

“[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).