explaining that “[t]o 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” as appellate courts will not reverse a jury verdict based on mere “possibilities of innocence”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[t]o 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” as appellate courts will not reverse a jury verdict based on mere “possibilities of innocence”
- noting that since at least 1869, Minnesota courts instructed the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence
- “In assessing the inferences drawn from the circumstances proved, the inquiry is not simply whether the inferences leading to guilt are reasonable. Although that must be true in order to convict, it must also be true that there are no other reasonable, rational inferences that are inconsistent with guilt.”
- reaffirming the standard of review applied in State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 217 N.W. 683 (1928)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEYER, Justice
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Paul H. Anderson.