Cited by

We assume that the fact-finder “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 4 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 w itnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

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

In doing so, we assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any ev idence to the contrary.” See State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

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

Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 17 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979) (“[I]t is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.”); (explaining the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius); Lindemer, 2020 WL 4572201, at *13–14 (reasoning that the Legislature’s provision of remedies for violations of one section of Minn. Stat. ch. 192 (2020) indicates that it did not intend to provide a re

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

We assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

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

See State v. Caldwell , (explaining that “testimony is not unknown to the petitioner when a potential witness is present at the scene of the crime with the petitioner, and the petitioner knows the substance of the testimony that the witness might provide”).

” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbe lieved any evidence to the contr ary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

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

We must 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 contr ary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses a nd disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v.Caldwell, (quotation omitted).

We assume that the fact-finder “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.” d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

” State v. Caldwell , ( quotation omitted).

” State v. Caldwell , ( quotation omitted).

State v. Moore , , 121-22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , , 384 (Minn. 2011) ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

Such an outc ome would be inconsistent with a defendant’s right to “a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” State v. Moore , -22 (Minn. App. 2015) (quoting State v. Caldwell , ), review denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).

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

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

We must assume that the 4 fact-finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to t he contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We must assume that the fact-finder “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).

This court must assume that the fact -finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

We assume that “the jury believed th e state’s witnesses and disbel ieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted).

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

This court “must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omi tted).

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.”

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

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

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

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

In State v. Caldwell , Caldwell alleged that his cou nsel was ineffective because counsel failed to use voir dire effectively, alleging “[defense ] counsel’s questioning of prospective jurors was perfunctory.”

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

that he had come across the firearm and this “strongly suggest[ed] he wanted the gun to remain in the home.” 4 Caldwell, ().