Cited by

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

“A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.” d 830, 841 (Minn. 2008).

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

Actual possession involves “direct physical control.”

Such an argument is justified because a prosecutor “ has the right to fairly meet the arguments of the defendant.” Jackson, d at 123; (reasoning that prosecutor may argue that a defense lacks merit).

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

Meanwhile, “[c]onstructive possession is usually said to mean the legal right to possession which follows from title.” (quotation omitted).

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

6 (applying Simion subject-matter- jurisdiction test to narrower context of venue) (citing State v. Simion , -39 (Minn. 2008)), review denied (Minn. Aug.

State v. Simion , -39 (Minn. 2008).

of the property to another.”

See State v. Simion , , 844 (Minn. 2008) ("The prosecutor's comment here was designed to draw the jury's attention to [the defendant's] attempt to distract from the criminal issues at trial.

A district court should deny a post -trial motion for judgment of acquittal if “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

A postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal “is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is suff icient to sustain a conviction.”

7 (holding that there was no misconduct when a prosecutor argued that defendant offered evidence to smear a witness’s character in the jury’s eyes); (holding that there was no error when a prosecutor argued that the defendant took “every opportunity to dirty up [victims] by accusing and insinuating that they were violating some rule or regulation.”) Similarly, here, there was no prosecutorial misconduct.

See State v. Mahkuk , (concluding that whether the stat e’s witness’s “violation of the trial court’s order” prohibiting the witness from testifying about a gang’s possession of firearms “was interchangeably); State v. Simion , (same); (Mi nn.

See id.; Leutschaft, d at 422–23

(“A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.” ()).

defense tactics,” such as suggestion that “[defendant’s] arguments amounted to throwing things at the wall to ‘see what sticks’”); (concluding that defendant did not meet burden to show that prosecutor’s closing argument was error where “prosecutor’s comment .

Actual possession involves “direct physical control.” (citing Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

Constructive possession can “exist[] where an owner intentionally gives actual possession—direct physical control—of the property to another in order for that person to do some act for the owner to or with the property.”

See State v. Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 104, (defining “actual possession” as “direct physical control”); Baehr, 258 Minn. at 537, d at 664 (defining “actual possession” in the context of land disputes as “‘actual occupan[c]y,’ which means physical presence upon and control of premises”).

“A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the [s]tate, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

12 “Were They Lying” Questions “Generally, questions designed to elicit testimony from one witness about the credibility of another have no probative value and are considered improper and argumentative.”

After we define “take,” we must examine whether “the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

The term “jurisdiction” refers to the power of the district court “to hear and decide disputes.” (quotation omitted).

“A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

(noting that a prosecutor has the right to argue that a particular defense lacks merit); (holding that the State is permitted to introduce evidence that defendant refused to speak to police after defense counsel attempted to create the impression tha

(noting that a prosecutor has the right to argue that a particular defense lacks merit); (holding that the State is permitted to introduce evidence that defendant refused to speak to police after defense counsel attempted to create the impression tha

We also reject Spence’s reliance on State v. Simion, which interprets possession within the context of theft of movable property to include both constructive and actual possession: “Constructive possession 'is usually said to mean the legal right to possession which follows from title without actual possession.’ ” , 841-42 (Minn.2008) (quoting Baehr v. Penn-O-Tex Oil Corp., 258 Minn. 533, 537 , ).

the supreme court addressed the application of the constitutional venue requirement in the context of interstate subject-matter jurisdiction.

1235 , 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006); -37 (Minn.2008).