Cited by

(rejecting appellant’s argument that prosecutor misstated the evidence where jury was instructed to rely on their own recollection and not the attorney’s argument).

State v. Taylor , d 142, 162-63 (Minn. 2024) (stating that a district “court’s instructions to the jury are .

(stating that a court’s instruction that jurors should rely on their own recollections mitigated any impact of a prosecutor’s misstatements during closing argument).

State v. Taylor , 6 -01 (Minn. 2002).

An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” n.12 (Minn. 2002).

“[P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Rather, to “successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

“A reviewing court considers the closing argument as a whole and does not focus on selective phrases or remarks.” (), rev. denied (Minn. July 18, 2023).

(“[P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories 8 Whitcomb argues, without authority, that the state was required to prove that Whitcomb actually viewed or personally downloaded the contraband.

Rather, “a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

And “[w]e presume that the jury followed the [district] court’s instruction.”

“To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

“To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

Possibilities of innocence do not require a directed verdict of acquittal as long as “the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”).

When a conviction depends on circumstantial evidence to prove an element of the offense, the “[c]ircumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the 7 defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

“[D]emeanor can be [a] valid, race -neutral explanation[] for a peremptory strike.” Lufkins, d at 210 (citing Snyder v. Louisiana , 552 U.S. 472 (2008)); (“Unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral.”).

Id.; d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002).

8 861 (Minn. 2008); (noting that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable” (quotation omitted)).

(stating that a reviewing court considers the prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole and does not focus 7 on selected phrases taken out of context).

(quotation omitted) (“possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”).

See id.; (quotation omitted) (noting that “possibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable”).

asserts that such an inference is supported by his contemporaneous statement that he was “just kidding.” “To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

“A reviewing court considers the closing argument as a whole and does not focus on selective phrases or remarks.”

“Circumstantial evidence 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.”

And “[w]e presume that the jury followed the [district] court ’s instruction.” State v. Taylor

We decline to address Scruggs’s ineffective-assistance claim because we may not review claims that rely on allegations “outside the record on appeal.” n.12 (Minn. 2002); Minn. R. Civ.

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)).

Possibilities of innocence do not require reversal “so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

Possibilities of innocence do not require reversal “so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

“To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant 6 must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

“To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

“Circu mstantial evidence 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.”

“Circumstantial evidence 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 infere nce other than guilt.” State v. Taylor

“To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.” State v. Taylor