Cited by

An error affects a defendant’s substantial rights where “there 8 is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

6 When a disputed element of an offense is based on direct evidence, appellate review is limited to a careful review of the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” (quotation omitted).

When an element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, our review for sufficiency of the evidence is limited to a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.” d 24, 39-40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

6 “With respect to the substantial-rights requirement, [the defendant] bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury ’s verdict.” State v. Horst , (quotation omitted).

An error is harmless beyond a 16 reasonable doubt only if the verdict was “surely unattributable to the error.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The appellant “bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Because “it is plainly erroneous for a district court to fail to give an accomplice - corroboration instruction when the facts warrant it,” State v. Horst , we turn immediately to the question of whether the failure to provide such an instruction impacted Colbert’s substantial rights.

When an element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, this court’s review is limited “to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most 12 favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.”

When a conviction is based on direct evidence, the reviewing court undertakes a “painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

When an element is supported by direct evidence, our sufficiency review is limited to “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.” ( quotation omitted).

When an element of an offense is based on direct evidence, appellate review is limited to a careful review of the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

If that is the case, then 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 conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

Substantial rights are affected if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Witness testimony “is direct evidence when it reflects a witness’s personal observations and allows the jury to find the defendant guilty without having to draw any inferences.”

When an element is supported by direct evidence, an appellate court’s review is limited to “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a 12 light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

-40 (Minn. 2016) (deciding whether to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence using the circumstantial-evidence standard or the traditional standard based on direct evidence).

Weeks, 232 U.S. at 392; (“In a criminal case, the remedy for an illegal search or seizure is generally limited to the suppression of illegally obtained evidence.”).

“With respect to the substantial-rights requirement, [the defendant] bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully review the record to determine “whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” (quotation omitted).

The appellant “bears the burden of establishing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the absence of the error would have had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

When an element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, 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 conviction, is sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.” -40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

And when each element of an offense is supported by direct evidence, this court’s review is limited “to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the [fact-finder] to reach the verdict which [it] did.” -40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).