Cited by

d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

16 result would have been different if counsel had not erred.” d 785, 790 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted).

d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

See Al-Naseer, d at 480 (stating that a defendant must provide more than conjecture or speculation); (stating that an appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture”); Gilleylen, d at 275 (noting the circumstances proved must be a “subset of facts that is consistent with the jury’s verdict” and directing appellate courts t

But “[a]n alternative theory does not justify a new trial if that theory is not plausible or supported by the evidence.”

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)); Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum.

d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998) (“ We will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.

“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance [and] [p] articular deference is given to the decisions of counsel regarding trial strategy.” (citation omitted); (“Appellate courts, which have the benefit of hindsight, do not review for competency matters of trial strategy.”).

The “performance” prong of the Strickland test requires appellant to show that his trial counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” ( ).

See State v. Mos ley, 26 (“Generally , [d]ecisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy, which we will not review.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lahue , –90 (Minn. 1998) (holding that the failure to locate witnesses and determining what information to present to the factfinder are matters of trial strategy).

We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

(recognizing that appellate courts “wi ll not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture”).

( citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

State v. Lahue , , 789 (Minn. 1998).

d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

But “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on 6 circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

“An alternativ e theory does not justify a new trial if that theory is not plausible or supported by the evidence.” State v. Lahue

(recognizing that appellate courts “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”).

4 An appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

There is a strong presumption that “counse l’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.”

State v. Lahue , , 789 (Minn. 1998) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687, 104 S.Ct.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 -88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)

To prove ineffective assistance of couns el, “an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance ‘fell below an objective s t a n d a r d o f reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.’” ().

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Ross must show “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a re asonable probability exists tha t the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Lahue

See State v. Lahue , (An appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”).

We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

There is a strong presumption that counsel’s “performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.” State v. Lahue

He can do this by establishing that the representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonablene ss.” (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

Thus, although the forensic scientist could not rule out the possibility of a secondary transfer, mere possibilities are not grounds for reversal “so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes suc h theories seem unreasonable.” (quotation omitted); (An appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”).

State v. Lahue , , 789 (Minn. 1998).

r of law.” Lee notes that a “firearm was never seen in [his] po ssession” and argues that the circumstances are easily explained by an alternate hypothesis of innocence: the firearm “could easily have been deposited or abandoned there by some other person.” An appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range 20 of reasonable assistance.”

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)

Typically, to succeed 6 on such a claim, an appellant must “demonstrate that counsel’ s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998) (citing Strickland v. Washi ngton, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

An appellate court “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue

(applying the Strickland test to claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel ).

Appellate courts “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

at 623 (explaining that on appeal the evidence is to be viewed as a 6 whole); see also State v. Lahue , ( stating that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence will not be overturned on the basis of an alternative theory that is not plausible or supported by the evidence).

“We will not overturn a conviction based on circumst antial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

State v. Lahue , , 789 (Minn. 1998).