Cited by

Indeed, “intent may be inferred from events occurring before and after 20 the crime.”

Intent may also be inferred “from events occurring before and after the crime,” and “the effect of the assault on the victim.”

We consider all evidence “in a light most favorable to the conviction,” , including evidence before and after the killing, 5

(a defendant’s intent may be reasonably inferred from other facts and is usually resolved circumstantially by the fact-finder); - 26 (Minn. 1999) (the fact-finder can discern a defendant’s intent from the totality of 5 circumstances); (a victim’s reaction to threatening words or conduct is “circumstantial evidence relevant to the element o

This includes evidence of the defendant’s conduct before and after the offense, such as “planning, concealing [their] identity, fleeing and evading capture, disposing of evidence, and showing awareness of consequences,” id., as well as apologizing, Peterson, d at 820, and pausing before or during the offense, consistent with reflection

Relevant circumstances may include events occurring before and after the incident, as well as the victim’s reaction to a threat

Relevant circumstances may include “events occurring before and after the crime,” Davis v. State , as well as the victim’s reaction to a threat

and [ the responding officer].” The supreme court has s tated that a district court “can look to events surround ing the crime in making a determination about [a defendant’s] sanity.” Davis v. State , ; State v. Wilson , (“[C]ircumstances surrounding the crime may shed light on [a] defendant’s mental state at the time of the [offense].”).

“A district court may reject a mental-illness defense based on evidence of a defendant’s behavior before and after crimes, including evidence that the defendant was aware of the consequences of her actions.” State v. Hall , (citing Roberts, d at 869); (“[T]he trial court can look to events surrounding the crime in making a determination about appellant’s sanity.”); State v. Wilson , (“[C]ircumstances surrounding the crime may shed light on defendant’s mental state at the time of the murders.”) .

State v. Roberts , , 869 (Minn. 2016) ( , 820 (Minn. 2009) ; Davis v. State , , 522-24, 527 (Minn. 1999) ; State v. Wilson , , 245-46 (Minn. 1995) ; DeMars v. State , , 15-16 (Minn. 1984) ).

“[I]ntent may be inferred from 7 events occurring before and after the crime.”

Rather, a person’s assaultive intent “must be determined fro m all the objective facts and circumstances, including the defendant’s conduct and/or statements at the time of the act.” -26 (Minn. 1999) (noting that intent may be proved from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s conduct, the characte r of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime).

Under the traditional standard of review, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine ‘whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” ().

-26 (Minn. 1999) (illustrating that intent can be inferred by defendant’s conduct as well as from events that occurred prior to and after the crime).

(“[T]he trial court can look to events surrounding the crime in making a determination about appellant’s sanity.”); (“[C]ircumstances surrounding the crime may shed light on defendant’s mental state at the time of the murders.”).

“Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence including the defendant’s conduct” and “may be inferred from events occurring before and after the crime.” -26 (Minn. 1999).

“[I]ntent may be inferred from events occurring before and after the crime.”

and the events occurring before and after the crime.” (-26 (Minn. 1999)).