Cited by

(quoting Griller, d at 741).

We must assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

“[I]nconsistencies in the state’s case or 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).

pretrial hearsay notice, he did so based on a claim that the notice provided inadequate details, which the state remedied; Meadows’s counsel later told the district court, “I didn’t make any hearsay objections.” “[W]e may consider an error not objected to at trial if there was (1) error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

Appellate courts “may consider an error not objected to at trial if there was (1) error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” d 849, 863 (Minn. 2008).

Put differently, we “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.”

As with direct evidence, we “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.”

As with direct evidence, we “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believéd the State’s witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

the evidence is cumulative or there is “other extensive evidence connecting [the defendant] to the commission of the crime.” (concluding that the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless error when the State presented witness testimony and forensic evidence corroborated the testimony linking the defendant to the crime); (finding that erroneous admission of hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause was harmless error when the hearsay was cumulative of other admissible testimon

“The phrase ‘circumstances proved’ does not mean ‘every circumstance as to which there may be some testimony in the case’; rather, it refers only to those ‘circumstances as the jury finds proved by the evidence.’ ” -58 (Minn.2008) (quoting State v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 543, 545 , 217 N.W.

873 n. 6 (Minn.2008) (Meyer, J., concurring) (“When defendants opt for an all-or-nothing verdict, appellate courts rarely afford relief when, with the benefit of hindsight, the strategy may have been mistaken.”).

See Part I.B., supra (concluding that erroneous admission of challenged photographs in evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); , 864 n. 18 (Minn.2008) (recognizing that harmless-error standard is higher standard than third prong of plain-error test).

If these three factors are met, we then ask whether the error needs to be addressed “to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Stated another way, we “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the jury believed the States witnesses and disbelieved the defense witnesses.”

We “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 State notes that a challenge to a verdict based on circumstantial evidence “may not rely on mere conjecture” or speculation.

“Minnesota’s traditional circumstantial evidence standard incorporates the burden of proof in sufficiency review....” (Meyer, J., concurring).

If we determine that there was error that was plain and that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, we “ ‘then assess [ ] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.’ ” (alterations in original) ().

2266, 2273 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)

Most recently, we held the evidence sufficient to support a murder conviction.