Cited by

Appellate courts are to reverse “[i]f a reasonable inference other than guilt exists.”

“If a reasonable inference other than guilt exists, then we will reverse the conviction.”

Next, we determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Loving v. State , d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Next, we determine “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

d 638, 646 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”

d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

First, appellate courts identify the circumstances proved by the state, giving deference to the fact-finder’s “acceptance of the [s]tate’s evidence and its rejection of any evidence in the record that is inconsistent with the circumstances proved by the [s]tate.”

called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Under the heightened two- step test, we consider whether the circumstances proved by the state are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent 13 with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Under the heightened two-step test, we consider the circumstances proved by the state and whether they are “consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

called the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.”

Second, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

Next, the appellate court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” Loving v. State , d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Next, we “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

“If a reasonable inference other than guilt exists, then we will reverse the conviction.” d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

Inferences Drawn from the Circumstances Proved Finally, we consider the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved “to determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Second, we independently consider “whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.”

called the circumstantial- evidence standard of review.”