Cited by

In other words, we must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

The third plain-error factor is “satisfied if the defendant meets his ‘heavy burden’ to show that the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.” (quoting Griller, d at 741).

Even so, “inconsistencies in the state’s case or possibilities of innocence” do not require reversal so long as the evidence as a whole “makes such theories seem unreasonable.”

An alternative hypothesis to guilt may not be based on “mere conjecture.”

Alternative hypotheses to guilt may not be based on “mere conjecture.” State v. Tscheu

There is no evidence in the record suggesting the presence of another party that could have been responsible for the rifle, and an alternative hypothesis to guilt may not be based on “mere conjecture.”

Conflicting evidence is cons trued in the light “most favorable to the verdict,” and we assume “that the jury belie ved the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

The reviewing court “construe[s] conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume[s] that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” d 849, 858 (Minn. 2008).

In doing so, the appellate court must “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses a nd disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

In doing so, the appellate court must “cons true conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.” State v. Tscheu

Id.; (applying plain-error review when the defendant objected on hearsay grounds but did not assert a confro ntation objection); State v. Tscheu , , 864 (Minn. 2008) (concluding no plain error because the guilty verdict was surely unattributable to the Confrontation Clause violations).

(quoting State v. Johnson, 217 N.W.

(holding that a defendant “may not rely on mere conjecture” and instead must “point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational th eory other than guilt”).

See State v. Tscheu , (M inn.

The state’s evidence does not need to exclude all inferences other than guilt, but it must “exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt.”

The state’s evidence need not exclude all inferences other than guilt, but it must “exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt.” .

“The state’s evidence need not 4 exclude all inferences other than guilt, bu t it must exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt.”

The state’s evidence does not need to exclude all inferences other than guilt, but it must “exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt .” State v. Tscheu

(stating the “appropriate procedure” for admitting rule 609(a) evidence is for the prosecutor to request a hearing outside the jury’s presence and “preferably before trial”).

–62 (Minn. 2008) (concluding the appellant was not entitled to reversal because he did not show prejudice from lack of notice that the State intended to impeach his testimony with prior convictions).

See State v. Tscheu , 63 (Minn. 2008) (applying plain -error analysis to constitutional challenge).

-61 (Minn. 2008); see also State v. Andersen , d 320, 330 (Minn. 2010) (“[W]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Tscheu , d 849, 857 (Minn. 2008) (“When we review whether the eviden ce is sufficient to sustain a conviction, we determine whether, under th e facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted)

See State v. Tscheu , -64 (Minn. 2008) (applying plain-error test to Confrontation Clause issue); State v. Manthey , d 498, 504 (Minn. 2006) (applying plain-error test to hearsay question).

The supreme court has held “that where a defendant chooses to introduce evidence after his motio n for judgment of acquittal has been denied, [this court] consider[s] the ‘whole record’ and not just the evidence produced by the State.” n.7 (Minn. 2008).

Tscheu , , 858 (Minn. 2008).