Cited by

Relevant surrounding circumstances may include “the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.” (citation omitted).

This includes “drawing inferences from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

Circumstantial evidence of intent includes inferences drawn “from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

Ibrahim’s reliance on is unpersuasive.

19, 2013); (character of and events surrounding crime relevant to show intent).

“Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences from the defendant ’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

Such evidence includes, “drawing inferences from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

(“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).

768 (Minn. App. 2001) ("On appeal from a determination that each of the elements of a delinquency petition have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining *867 whether, given the facts and legitimate inferences, a fact-finder could reasonably make that determination."

(“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or a ctions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).

(concluding that the juven ile court was not precluded from finding officers’ testimony credible although it included details not in the report).

“Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the [crime], and the events occurring before and after the crime.” In the Welfare of T.N.Y.

nd she was afraid that she was about to be assaulted.” Although a finding of intent gener ally cannot be based solely o n the effect the actor’s conduct had on the victim, “[i]ntent may be proved by c ircumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences fro m the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.” d 765, 769 (Minn. App. 2001); see also Nelson , d at 860 (“Intent is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or

768 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted).

“Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

“[A] finding of intent to cause fear in a nother of immediate bodily harm or death cannot be based solely on the effect the actor’s behavior had on the victim.” see also State v. Ott , 291 Minn. 72, 75, (noting for assault-fear, the intent of the actor “becomes the focal point for inquiry,” as opposed to “the effect upon the victim”).

9 the requisite intent to cause fear.” (collecting cases).

This court must assume that the fact-finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” (quotation and citation omitted); (stating that the same standard of review applies to court trials and jury trials).

For this argument, she relies on (“The crime is in the act done with intent to cause fear, not in whether the intended result is achieved.” (quotation omitted)).

In determining whether a defendant intended another to fear bodily harm, relevant circumstances include “the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.” 770 (Minn. App. 2001).

(holding that appellant’s “intent to cause fear in [the victim] was carried out by his intentional pointing of a gun at her”); (“Pointing a weapon at a police officer or another person has been held to supply the requisite intent to cause fear.”).

(quotations and citations omitted).

another person has been held to supply the requisite intent to cause fear.”

“Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including drawing inferences from the defendant’s conduct, the character of the assault, and the events occurring before and after the crime.”

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

We “must assume that the fact-finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”