Cited by

(quotation and citation omitted).

“A de fendant may possess an item jointly with another person.”

Circumstantial evidence, on the other han d, is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist” and “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” (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 and alteration 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).

(stating that multiple persons may constructively possess a firearm jointly).

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist” and “always requires an inferential step to prove a fact that is not required with direct evidence.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the [jury] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed.” (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.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

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

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 [jury] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (Mi nn.

Consistent with our standard of review, which requires that we reject evidence that is not consistent with the jury’s verdict, we assume that there was no noise.

“[D]irect 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).

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

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

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

In simpler terms, we “winnow down the evidence presented at trial” to a “subset of facts” that are consistent with the jury’s verdict and “disregard evidence that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.” –01 (Minn. 2017).

(discussing elements of possession of firearm by ineligible person).

Direct 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 omitted).

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

ound the item in a place under the defendant’s exclusive cont rol to which other pe ople normally did not have access” or (2) “if police found the item in a place to which others had access,” by proving that “there is a strong probability (inf erable from other evidence) that at the time 6 the defendant was consciously or knowingly exercising dominion and control over it.” (citation omitted).

“Possession may be proved 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).

To convict Mindermann of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, the state was required “to prove in re levant part that he knowingly possessed the firearm.”

proves a fact without inference or presumption.” (citations and quotations omitted).

Circumstantial evid ence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” d 592, 599 (Minn. 2017) (quota tion omitted).

First, we identify the circumstances proved, “disregard [ing] evidence that is inconsistent with 1 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 “ev idence from which the [fact-finder] can infer whether the facts in dispute existe d or did not exist.” State v. Harris , (quotation omitted).

“[D]irect evidence is [e]vidence 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 [jury] can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quotation omitte d).

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

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

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

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence 5 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 592, 601 (Minn. 2017).