Cited by

(holding that a jury is not required to unanimously agree on which acts comprised the “past pattern of domestic abuse” element of first-degree domestic abuse murder).

- 33 D-2 (Minn. 2007); -703 (Minn. 2002); Ihle, d at 917-19; -39 (Minn. 2001).

“But we will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone.”

An error is plain when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. 5 Zinski, ().

(providing that unobjected -to jury instructions are reviewed for plain error) .

“An error is plain if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation 16 omitted).

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Hayes , –53 (Minn. 2013).

" State v. Hayes , , 555 (Minn. 2013) (quoting State v. Ramey , , 302 (Minn. 2006) ).

State v. Hayes , , 553 (Minn. 2013).

“But we will not overturn a guilty verdict on conjecture alone.”

(stating that “[u]nobjected -to jury instructions are reviewed for plain error ”).

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder 5 disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” 552 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

– 54 (Minn. 2013) (stating that appellate courts must assume the jury believed state expert testimony that injuries were non -accidental over contrary defense expert testimony).

An error is plain if it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.”

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict” and assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION I. Sufficiency of the evidence “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, [appellate courts] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence leading to a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (quotation omitted).

d 546, 552-53 (Minn. 2013) (noting two-step analysis for examining conviction when an element of the offense has been proven by circumstantial evidence, beginning with circumstances proved).

-53 (Minn. 2013) (affirming conviction arising from infant’s severe head injury, despite defendant’s expert’s testimony of possible accidental cause, because circumstantial evidence showed that injuries “were too severe to be the result of a typical household fall”); -72 (Minn.

(reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error).