Cited by

When applying the direct-evidence standard, we examine the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences, drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A “proceeding” does not consist solely of the trial, but refers to “the multiple, progressive hearings within a particular action at law or case in litigation.” (quotation omitted).

the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “conduct a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that when we consider a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record to determine “whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted)).

Our interpretation must comply “with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.”

“The” is a word of limitation, versus th e inclusive article “a.” (citing Am.

(stating that the definite article “the” is a word of limitation indicating reference to a specific object).

“We interpret court rules in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.” Dereje v. State , ().

- 35 (Minn. 2012) (concluding the evidence against defendant was strong for purposes of substantial-rights analysis when the state relied on circumstantial evidence to support the verdict).

(noting that definite article “the” is “a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object” (emphasis added) ).

When reviewin g a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we examine the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were suffi cient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” State v. Hohenwald , (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a sufficienc y-of-the-evidence challenge, this court examines the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” State v. Hohenwald , (quotation omitted).

B. Sufficiency of the evidence When reviewing a sufficiency -of-the-evidence challenge, we examine the record “to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted) (citation omitted).

2 (2012)); (“The word ‘proceedings’ generally refers to the course of procedure in a judicial action or in a suit in litigation .

.”); (“The definite article ‘the’ is a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object.”).

Dereje v. State , , 720 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Hohenwald , , 829 (Minn. 2012) ).

State v. Hohenwald , , 830 (Minn. 2012) ; see also American Heritage Dictionary , supra , at 1803.

When considering a claim of insu fficient evidence, appellate co urts conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evide nce and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

To determine the effect of the error, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Hohenwald , (quoting State v. Davis , ) .

On this record, “there is no reasonable like lihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that defendant must show reasonable probability that error substantially affected verdict to obtain reversal).

(“The word ‘proceedings’ generally refers to ‘the course of procedure in a judicial action or in a suit in litigation’ .

That dismissal, however, still falls within the language of Rule 60.02 because it is a “proceeding.” See id.; (“The word ‘proceeding[]’ generally refers to ‘the course of procedure in a judicial action or in a suit in litigation.’ ”).

As we have observed, “[t]he definite article ‘the’ is a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object.”

1 (requiring the prosecution to disclose matters, persons with information, documents and objects, and reports of examinations and tests that “relate to the case,” as well as exculpatory information that “tends to negate or reduce the defendant’s guilt” (emphasis added)); (“The definite article ‘the’ is a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object.”).

In addressing this question, we consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotation omitted).

We consider “the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotation omitted).

“The definite article ‘the’ is a word of limitation that indicates a reference to a specific object.”

(Minn. 2012}_1 On July 11, 2014, Hohenwald filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.