Cited by

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct evidence as “evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption” (quotation omitted)).

He argues that when direct evidence contradicts circumstantial evidence, the direct evidence “must be given appropriate weight unless it is incredible as a matter of law.” for this proposition.

Bernhardt v. State , -77 (Minn. 2004).

In discussing the motive evidence, the concurrence/

–96 (Minn. App. 2022) (–77 (Minn. 2004)).

Even if an appellate court identifies a plain error that affects substantial rights, reversal is warranted only if it is necessary to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.”

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)).

We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

However, even if we identify a plain error that affects substantial rights, we reverse only if it is necessary to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that both forms of evidence are entitled to the same weight).

(stating that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants higher scrutiny).

A verdict will not be overturned “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

A conviction will not be reversed “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004) (stating that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants higher scrutiny).

“Direct evidence is evidence based on personal knowledge or observation that, if true, proves a fact without inference.” ( n.11 (Minn. 2004)).

“Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.”

“Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.”

(stating that both forms of evidence are entitled 12 to the same weight).

“Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.”

If an appellant demonstrates plain error that affects substantial rights, we then determine whether to “address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted).

Bernhardt v. State , –77 (Minn. 2004).

A conviction will not be reversed “if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a re asonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).

“Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence; however, if a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, a higher level of scrutiny is warranted.”