Cited by

(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).

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

“[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 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).

-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 [jury] 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).

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

5 can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

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

See State v. Harris , (restating that direct evid ence “is based on personal knowledge or observation and .

(applying circumstantial-evidence standard of revi ew to consider whet her state’s evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

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

possession when (1) the item was found “in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people normally did not have access” or (2) if the item was found in a place to which others had access, “there is a strong probability (inf erable from other eviden ce) that at the time the defendant was consciously or knowingly ex ercising dominion and control over it.” State v. Harris

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

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

-03 (Minn. 2017) (a pplying circumstantial -evidence standard).

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