Cited by

The supreme court held in State v. Charlton that “specific intent, or a purposeful or conscious desire to 4 bring about a criminal result, is an element of a robbery charge.” 1 Because appellant challenges intent, and intent is a product of the mind and is generally proved by circumstantial evidence, we apply the circumstantial-evidence standard of review.

Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially —by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper

(stating that because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances,” and that when considering circumstantial evidence of intent, “the jury may infer that a person int

Intent is a state of mind and must generally be proved by circumstantial evidence, which requires the fact-finder to make an inference based on “the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper

(stating that intent is generally established by circumstantial evidence).

Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially —by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Cooper

See State v. Cooper , , 179 (Minn. 1997) ("Because intent and premeditation are states of mind, they are generally proved circumstantially-by drawing inferences from the defendant's words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.").

(“In reaching its conclusion, the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions and a defendant’s statements as to his intentions are not binding on the jury if his acts demonstrated a contrary intent.”).

See State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumstantial e v i d e n c e ) .

A fact-finder can also infer that an actor “intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.”

(), review denied (Minn. Nov.

17, 201 2); (recognizing that because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by circumstantial ev idence).

See, 01 (Minn. 2017); State v. Al-Naseer , (holding that a conviction ba sed on circumstantial evidence warrants heightened scrutiny); State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumst antial evidence).

(noting th at because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved circumstantially via inferences drawn from the actor’s words and actions in the context of the entire occurrence).

Intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and acts in light of the totality of the circumstances, State v. Cooper , “and the events leading up to and immediately following the crime,”

(stating intent is generally proved through circumstantial evidence) .

Although she testified that she did not intend to knock over the bin, the jury was free to “infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of [her] actions.”

State v. Cooper , (recognizing that intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).

1 (defining second -degree assault); State v. Cooper , (stating that “the jury may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”).

Intent is a state of mind generally proved through circumstantial evidence “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”

(clarifying that heightened scrutiny applies both to cases in which all of the evidence is circumstantial and to cases in which only one element of the offense is proved by circumstantial evidence); (recognizing that because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by circumstantial evidence).

“Intent is a state of mind that is generally proved using circumstantial evidence ‘by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.’” (), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Because intent is a state of mind, it can be proved circumstantially “by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”

d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997).

Because intent is a state of mind, it is “generally proved circumstantially— by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”

Intent is “generally proved circumstantially—by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.”