State v. Lahue (1998)

"An appellant arguing that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel 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." State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)) (noting that to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must show that trial 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”).

Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d at 842 (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)).

We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

But “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

Even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, we have recognized that "the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence[,]" and we "will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture." State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Pearson must prove that his "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome [of the proceeding] would have been different but for counsel's errors." State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

But Tscheu's argument fails to acknowledge that "[e]ven in cases based on circumstantial evidence,... we have consistently recognized that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we `will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.'" Asfeld, 662 N.W.2d at 544 (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)).

To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance “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.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998) (citations omitted).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998) (citation omitted).

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Boitnott must show that his 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.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998). “[P]ossibilities of innocence” do not justify relief.

But “[a]n alternative theory does not justify a new trial if that theory is not plausible or supported by the evidence.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

An alternative hypothesis does not justify granting relief if the hypothesis is “not plausible or supported by the evidence.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998); see also Jones, 392 N.W.2d at 236 (“Which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions that lie within the proper discretion of the trial counsel.”).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

See State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 790 (Minn. 1998) (“Appellant does not explain how any of the items . . . would exonerate him.

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

“We will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998); see Hanson, 800 N.W.2d at 622 (stating that a rational hypothesis negating guilt must be based on more 5 than mere conjecture).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998). 9 Appellant alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the admissibility of significant-relationship evidence at the omnibus hearing was “not a reasonable tactic that a competent attorney would have made.” “Generally, we will not review an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strate…

“A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

To meet this burden, the defendant 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.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-94 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-69 (1984).

Therefore, appellant’s hypothesis is “mere conjecture” and “the reasonable inferences from [the circumstances proved] are consistent only with [appellant’s] guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis.” See State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 788-89 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

The defendant 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.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (holding that a defendant must show his attorney’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of r…

See State v. 5 Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998) (“An alternative theory does not justify a new trial if that theory is not plausible or supported by the evidence.”).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn. 1998). “[P]ossibilities of innocence do not require reversal . . . so long as the evidence taken as a whole makes such theories seem unreasonable.” State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190, 206 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted).

State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842 (Minn.2003) (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 562 (Minn.1987)).

Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d at 842 (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)).

“We will not overturn a conviction based on cireumstan- tial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

The trier of fact is in the best position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence; therefore, “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842 (Minn.2003) (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)).

We “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

But “[w]e will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 330 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)); accord Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d at 473 .

State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842 (Minn.2003) (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)). *138 Under the first prong, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient, which means that counsel’s performance “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

In order to succeed in asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Bruestle must demonstrate (1) that his counsel’s performance “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ ” and (2) “ ‘that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for [his] counsel[’s] errors.’ ” Voorhees v. State, 627 N.W.2d 642, 649 (Minn.2001) (quoting State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998)); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 6…

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Zenanko must show that his 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.” Boitnott v. State, 631 N.W.2d 362, 370 (Minn.2001) (citing State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

Even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, however, we have consistently recognized that the jury is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, and we “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998).

To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance “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.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998) (citing Scruggs v. State, 484 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn.1992) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

In order to succeed on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Voorhees must demonstrate that his counsels’ performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsels’] errors.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Minn.1998); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).