Cited by

-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).

Second, we “determine 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).

” Loving v. State , 11 (quotation omitted) .

“When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, [this court] conduct[s] 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 [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” Loving v. State , (quotations omitted) .

(explaining that the supreme court has typically “vacated convictions of unsentenced, duplicative offenses and left the jury’s guilty verdicts on those counts intact”).5 Conclusion In sum, we conclude that the prosecutorial misco nduct Bailey alleges does not warrant reversal of his convictions

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

” Loving v. State , (quotation omitted).

d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

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

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

d 638, 643 (Minn. 2017).

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

” Loving v. State , (quotations omitted).

Loving v. State , (Mi nn.

If the state proves a disputed element using direct evidence, “we 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 t he jury to reach its verdict.” Loving v. State , (quotations omitted).

See Loving v. State , (stating that when the direct evidence of guilt on a particular element is insufficient to sustain the verd ict, a reviewing court may look to circumstantial evidence to sustain the verdict).

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

Although the parties frame the issue using the circumstantial-evidence standard, see Loving v. State , ( outlining the two -step standard of review that appellate courts apply when the state proves an element of the offense using circumstantial evidence), we need only look to the direct evidence presented at trial to show Vang’s actual possession of the package.

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

(stating that a “lesser burden rests on a defendant pleading self -defense” and it is “one of production, which requires the defendant to come forward and present a sufficient threshold of evidence to make the defense one of the issues o

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