Cited by

When reviewing a conviction based on circumstant ial evidence, we apply a “heightened two-step test.” State v. Petersen , –7 (Minn. 2018).

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

“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Petersen , (quotation omitted).

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

A conviction must be reversed “[i]f a reasonable inference other than guilt exists.”

See, (stating that if the language of a rule of criminal procedure is plain and unambiguous, appellate courts follow the language of the rule).

(“We use the same standard of review in bench trials and in jury trials in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.”).

State v. Petersen , , 6 (Minn. 2018).

An appellate court assumes that “the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with th[e] verdict.” (quotation omitted).

The relevant standard of review depends on whether the factfinder reached its conclusion of law based on direct or circumstantial evidence.3

State v. Petersen , , 7 (Minn. 2018) (citation omitted).

prior to its commission.” (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.18 (2 016)).