Cited by

(“[T]he acquittal of a principal does not bar conviction of a defendant for aiding and abetting .

See State v. Caldwell , , 382 (Minn. 2011) ("We will not supply words that the Legislature either purposely omitted or inadvertently left out.").

At this stage in the analysis, we assume that the court, acting as fact -finder, “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

We assume that “t he jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

We assume the fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved a ny evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

See, (holding no ineffective assistance of counsel based on the claim that trial counsel “consulted with [defendant] only three times”).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’ s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state ’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that this court presumes that jury believed state witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Expressio unius generally reflects an inference that any omissions in a statute are intentional.” (citations omitted); see, e.g., Staab v. Diocese of St.

” (citations omitted); see, e.g., Staab v. Diocese of St.

at 121 (quoting State v. Caldwell , (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2356 (2000), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1072 (1970))).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses an d disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011).

We 4 must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

.The dissent also asserts that our interpretation conflicts with the canon “expressio unius est exclusio alterius," meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).

A reviewing court must assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

A petitioner for postconviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when “material facts are in dispute that must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” (quotation omitted).

4 Our review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.”

Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).

In order for a postconviction court to grant relief, the allegations in the postconviction petition for relief must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Caldwell (Caldwell I)