Cited by

“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen

State v. Petersen , -7 (Minn. 2018)

“The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder (the district court here) reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”

A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if the circumstances proved “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if the circumstances proved “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen

In other words, it must “form[] a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted); (stating that circumstantial evidence must “point unerringly to the accused’s guilt” (quotation omitted)).

reached its conclusion of law based on direct 17 or circumstantial evidence.”

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.” State v. Petersen

We will uphold the verdict if the circumstances proved form “a complete chain” which “leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”

Motive evidence can include “prior conduct by the victim known to have angered the defendants.”

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”

Because the State relied solely on circumstantial evidence to prove Isaac’s knowledge and intent, we apply a heightened two-step standard of review.3

reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.”

We turn to the next step of our circumstantial evidence standard, which requires us to consider whether the circumstances proved, when viewed as a whole, are consistent with “any rational hypothesis other than guilt.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ().

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” that leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “so directly to 6 the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

Hughes, d at 313; –8 (Minn. 2018) (collecting decisions).

See, -67 (Minn. 2020) (analyzing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge against the elements of the offense as set forth by state statute); - 18 (Minn. 2020) (same); -9 (Minn. 2018) (same).

We will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).

We will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quoting Al-Naseer, d at 473).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” that leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we will uphold the conviction if the “circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” (quotation omitted).

20 any reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Peterson , (quotation omitted).

’ ” McInnis, d at 891 ().

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other th an guilt.” (quotation omitted).

But we will uphold the verdict if the circumstantial evidence forms “a complete chain” which leads “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt .” State v. Peterson , ().