Court Opinion

ID: 9669642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:02:43.216746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:58.997847
License: Public Domain

HUSPENI, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the conviction. The State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew or had reason to know the calves were stolen. In order to rely on *532circumstantial evidence to prove this element of the offense charged, the evidence must be inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than appellant’s guilt. See State v. Berndt, 392 N.W.2d 876, 880 (Minn.1986).
The evidence is not inconsistent with the hypothesis advanced by appellant that he merely followed his normal practice in buying calves for his own use. There had been no publicity about the theft of calves to prompt appellant to take additional precautions to guard against buying stolen calves. Although the calves’ ear tags were removed, there is no evidence that appellant removed the tags or that the removal should have been apparent to him. Three weeks after the purchase, the calves were still at appellant’s farm and were sufficiently visible to prompt a neighbor to inform law enforcement officials.
The State has failed to show that the circumstances here are inconsistent with appellant’s innocence. As a result, I cannot conclude that the evidence presented by the State has, beyond a reasonable doubt, formed a complete chain leading directly to the guilt of appellant. State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn.1980). In the interests of justice, the conviction should be reversed.