Cited by

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).

(quotation omitted).1 “[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).

“ Possession may be proved through evidence of actual or constructive possession.” , 601 (Minn. 2017).

“[C]ircumstantial evidence always requires an 11 inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.”

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,” 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).

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

The jury credited the victim’s testimony, and “the jury is in a unique position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence before it.” d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017).

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).

Evidence is circumstantial when it “requires an inferential step to prove a fact.”

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

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

We will not consider overruling precedent—a substantially disfavored turn—unless a challenger presents a compelling reason, establishing that the prior decision is “clearly and manifestly erroneous.” (quotation omitted)

Direct evidence is evidence “based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation omitted).

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

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [fact -finder] 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).

“[D]irect evidence is evidenc e that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (quotation and alteration omitted).

-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard).

-03 (Minn. 2017) (applying circumstantial-evidence standard to individual element of criminal offense that was proved by circumstantial evidence).

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

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

“[C]ircumstantial evidence always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is n ot required with direct evidence.”

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.”

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

Hanson, d at 622; d 592, 600 (Minn. 2017) (reaffirming circumstantial- evidence standard of review).

“[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).