Cited by

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we generally hold them to the same standards as attorneys.” -77 (Minn. App. 2019).

That is true but is not a circumstance proved because “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

“Proof of either actual knowledge or reason to 5 Sanko also notes the absence of any expert testimony establishing that the minors depicted were “real.” But “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

I do have 1 other flavor & recipe to try if you want to or if this one isn’t up to 2 The state asserts that Traylor’s argument is flawed because Traylor “mistakenly relies on the lack of forensic evidence,” -74 (Minn. App. 2019) (holding that “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved”).

d 466, 472 (Minn. App. 2019).

explaining that “an assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’ s brief is [forfeited] and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quoting Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., ), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2025); -77 (Minn. App. 2019) (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we generally hold them to the same standards as attorneys.” (d 115, 119 (Minn

But when “circumstances are uncontroverted, come from a state witness, and are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

“[T]he absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. 2019).

But “where circumstances 7 are uncontroverted, come from a state witness, and are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

Vialard also argues that there is a rational alternative hypothesis on whether she intended to obstruct her arrest because the circumstances proved are devoid of any evidence that she made “disparaging or violent statements toward law enforcement.” But “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

“[T]he absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” - 74 (Minn. App. 2019).

“[T]he absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

“[W]here circumstances are uncontroverted, come from a state witness, and are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

Finally, the absence of “notebooks, ledgers, or cutting/manufacturing agents” does not support Gamble’s proposed inference, because “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

“Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a summary and conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming that errors of law occurred.” (quotation omitted).

When uncontroverted accounts from the state’s witnesses “are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

-74 (Minn. App. 2019) (“[T]he absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.”).

When uncontroverted accounts from the state’s witnesses “are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

And although the absence of evidence is not a circumstance proved and cannot support an alternative hypothesis, evidence tying a defendant directly to contraband supports a conviction by excluding alternative hypotheses.

First, the absence of evidence is not a circumstance proved, -74 (Minn. App. 2019), and the latter three “circumstances proved” that appellant offers are inferences or mere allegations in support of inferences rather than circumstances proved.

We have held that “the absence of evidence in the record regarding a certain circumstance does not constitute a circumstance proved.” -74 (Minn. App. 2019).

(circumstances proved are those that are consistent with the jury verdict).

We note that “where circumstances are uncontroverted, come from a state witness, and are not necessarily contradictory to the verdict, they constitute circumstances proved.”

Although prosecutors may not “intentionally misstate the evidence,” they may present “all legitimate arguments on the evidence and all proper inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” (quotation omitted).

German, (the state can prove constructive possession using circumstantial evidence).

(citing Hanson, d at 622).

Circumstances proved include evidence that supports the finding of guilt and any uncontroverted testimony of a state witness that is “not necessarily contradictory to the verdict.” d 466, 473 (Minn. App. 2019).

Circumstances proved include evidence that supports the finding of guilt and uncontroverted testimony of a state witness that is “not necessarily contradictory to the verdict.”