Cited by

Despite the plain error, the state urges us to affirm because Williams “has not made a showing that he was prejudiced.” “An error affects substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that it substantially affects the verdict.”

(“We need not and do not consider the first two steps of the plain error analysis because Robertson has not shown that the alleged error affected his substantial rights.”).

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficien cy of the evidence, “we review the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, [the factfinder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” State v. Robertson , (quotations omitted).

-72 (Minn. 2016) (considering whether “[w]hen viewed as a whole, the circumstances proved supported] a rational inference that Robertson was the shooter”); (explaining that “[w]e review the circumstantial evidence not as isolated facts, but as a whole”).

We will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary rulings “absent a clear abuse of discretion.” d 864, 872 (Minn. 2016).

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, [the fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.” (quotation omitted); (stating that same standard of review applies in bench trials and in jury trials when evaluating suff iciency of the evidence).

dep ends on circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court applies a two -step analysis that first identifies the circumstances that are proved and then determines whether the circumstances proved “are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” -99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations omitted)

-99 (Minn. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted); (reiterating and applying two-step test).

On plain-error review, an appellant must establish that “(1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.”

DECISION In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the evidence to determine whether, given the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from those facts, [the fact-finder] could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense[s] charged.” (quotation omitted); (stating that same standard of review applies in bench trials and in jury trials when evaluating sufficiency of the evidence).