Cited by

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).

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).

“To convict [ a defendant] of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the state [is] required to prove in relevant part that he knowingly possessed the firearm.” (emphasis added) .

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

see also Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd.

“[D]irect evidence is evidence that is ba sed 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,” and it “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact.”

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

e circumstances proved are as follows: (1) a glass pipe typically used to smoke narcotics was found in Armstrong’s front-left pocket; (2) a lighter was found in Armstrong’s front-right pocket; (3) the pipe was of the sort commonly used to smoke 2 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.” State v. Harris , (quotation and citations 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) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-03 (Minn. 2017) 5 (applying circumstantial-evidence standard).3 Under the circumstantial-evidence standard of review, we first determine the circumstances proved, disregarding evidence inconsistent with the verdict.

“[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 a fact-finder can “infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial ev idence 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).

1(2) (2020); (“To convict [a defendant] of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the [s]tate w as required to prove in relevant part that he knowingly possessed the firearm.”).

“[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).

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