Cited by

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (qu otation omitted).

We assume that the jury “believed the st ate’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).

State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).

We must assume that the trier of fact “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, which is typically established if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

We must assume that the trier of fact “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.”

State v. Webster , , 786 (Minn. 2017).

State v. Webster , , 785 (Minn. 2017).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious, whic h is typically established if th e error contravenes case law, a 12 rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster , (quotation omitted).

d 782, 786 (Minn. 2017).

“We limit our re view of the sufficiency of the evidence to ascertaining whether the jury , giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the [appellant] guilty.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

onal belongings at each other’s homes, or that they had introduced each other to their family and or friends.” Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited “to ascertaining whether the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found the appellant guilty.” (quotation omitted).