Cited by

A conviction will not be reversed “if [a] 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).

“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.”

Peterson cites three circumstantial-evidence cases to support his argument for reversal based on either of his alternative hypotheses:

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining circumstantial evidence); see also Lampkin, d at 291 (stating that “intent is generally proven by circumstantial evidence”).

“An appellate court will not disturb a guilty verdict if the fact-finder, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could have reasonably concluded that the state proved the defendant’s guilt.” –96 (Minn. App. 2022) (–77 (Minn. 2004)).

Circumstantial evidence on the other hand is evidence “based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation and all evidence that is not given by eyewitness testimony.” n.11 (Minn. 2004) (citation omitted).

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

d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

ional and whether any inferences contrary to 2 See Evidence, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining circumstantial evidence as “[e]vidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation” and direct evidence as “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption”); n.11 (Minn. 2004) (defining direct and circumstantial evidence).

n.11 (Minn. 2004) (“Circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation .

“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.”

We do not disturb the verdict “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) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, –76 (Minn. 2004) (ending analysis without reaching the appellant’s Confrontation Clause claim because the statements were inadmissible hearsay).

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

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

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

In showing that a plain error affected their substantial rights, the appellant “bears a heavy burden of persuasion to show that the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

In showing that a plain error affected their substantial rights, the 17 appellant “bears a heavy burden of persuasion to show that the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” (quotation omitted).

The verdict will not be disturbed if the fact-finder, “acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a 6 reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.” -77 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted).

leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002); (stating that circumstantial evidence “must point unerringly” to guilt (quotation omitted)).