Cited by

“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.” d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002).

No inferences need.” Finally, a district court’s cautionary instructions are also relevant in assessing prejudice because “[w]e presume that the jury followed the [district] court’s instruction.”

“Circumstantial ev idence 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 reasonabl e doubt any reasonable infe rence other than guilt.”

A district court’s cautionary instructions are also relevant in assessing prejudice because “[w]e presume that the jury followed the court’s instruction.” State v. Taylor

so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes [] theories [of innocence] seem unreasonable.”

te offered no evidenc e about the circumstances under which the DANCO was issued and ‘served,’ and no evidence that [he] understood or knew the order served upon him was a ‘DANCO.’” 6 “To successfully challenge a conviction ba sed upon circumstantial evidence, a defendant must point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

See Cooper, d at 179 (stating that when considering a defendant’s intent, “the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probab le consequences of his actions”); see also State v. Taylor , (upholding conviction based on circumstantial evidence when, viewed as a whole, the evidence led directly to 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 inference 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 ra tional 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.”

“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.” d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002) .

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

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a 7 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

“Circumstantia l 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 9 reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002).

(noting that we must consider evidence as a whole rather than examining each piece of evidence in isolation).

The existence of “racial discrimination in the exercise of a peremptory challenge is a factual 6 determination to be made by the district court and is entitled to great deference on review.” –01 (Minn. 2002).

State v. Taylor , , 201 (Minn. 2002).

State v. Taylor , , 206 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).

See Seaver, d at 633; see also State v. Taylor , - 03 (Minn. 2002).

Under this heightened scrutin y, “[c]ircumstantial evidence must form a complete cha in that, in view of the eviden ce as a whole, leads so 7 directly to the guilt of the def endant as to exclude beyond a r easonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

Under this heightened scruti ny, “[c]ircumstantial evidence must form a complete cha in that, in view of the eviden ce as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the def endant as to exclude beyond a r easonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.”

See Mahkuk, d at 689; (noting that we presume a jury follows a district court’s instructions).

(indicating reversal is not required if the “evidence taken as a whole” makes the defendant’s theory “seem unreasonable”).

(noting that appellate courts presume a jury follows a district cour t’s instructions).

See State v. Taylor , (noting that we presume a jury follows a district court’s instructions).

To do so, we review the evidence as a whole, and “must determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” Id.; see also State v. Taylor , (“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 inferen

To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, appellant bears the burden of “point[ing] to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory ot her than guilt.” State v. Taylor

To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, appellant bears the burden of “point[ing] to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

To successfully challenge a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, appellant bears the burden of “point[ing] to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.”

We “presume that the jury followed the [district] court’s instruction.” see State v. Gassler , 7 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that no error occurred where district court instructed the jury that arguments were not evidence).

In other words, 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 defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt.” ().

(noting that we presume a jury follows a district court’s instructions).

(noting that we presume a jury follows a district court’s instructions).