Cited by

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

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

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

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

(quotation omitted); see also U.S. Const. amend.

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

But when the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an element of an offense, we apply a heightened standard of review in which we independently examine, with no deference to the jury, “the reasonableness of all inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved.”

We apply this traditional standard of review “whenever the direct evidence establishing a particular element of a crime is alone sufficient to support the jury verdict.”

2016); see also Loving v. State , (finding no direct evidence of defendant ’s state of mind through his statements and applying the circumstantial-evidence standard).

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

Next, the appellate court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational 12 hypothesis other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

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

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

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

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

We apply this traditional standard of review “whenever the direct evidence establishing a particular element of a crime is alone sufficient to support the jury verdict.”

-50 (Minn. 2017) (describing the procedure for reversing convictions pursuant to section 609.04).

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