Cited by

points to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt.” (quotation omitted)); (“[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.” (quotation omitted)).

We give the district court’s findings on the third step considerable deference, “because the court’s finding typically turns largely on credibility.”

And “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).

“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.”

(“The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 911 tape was relevant evidence.

so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

“[P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal of a jury verdict so long 8 as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that “[a] reviewing court considers the closing argument as a whole and does not focus on selective phrases” taken out of context).

See, , 315-16 (Minn.2010) (concluding that any misstatement of evidence during prosecutor’s closing argument was harmless because statement was in support of premeditated murder charge, and defendant was acquitted of premeditated murder); (concluding that there was no misconduct when prosecutor spoke to a grand juror about lesser-included offenses because defendant was acquitted on lesser-included charge); (concluding that defendant was not prejudiced by admission of photos relating t

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Spann, d at 491 (explaining that “a defendant can always waive the right to appeal simply by not filing an appeal”); State *615 v. Taylor, (finding that a defendant can waive his right to appeal a particular issue by failing to object to an error at trial); , 357 (Minn.1996) (declining to consider issues on appeal not argued to and considered by the district court).

(upholding admission of evidence where appellant failed to object at trial); see also Roby v. State, 547 * (holding that appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).

But in circumstantial-evidence cases, the 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.”

In circumstantial-evidence cases, the 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.”

So in circumstantial-evidence cases, the 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.”

In circumstantial-evidence cases, the 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.”

This heightened scrutiny requires us to consider “whether the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved support a rational hypothesis other than guilt.”