HOOTEN, Judge *792In this appeal from her conviction of storing methamphetamine
paraphernalia in a child's residence, appellant argues that there is insufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she engaged in the activity of
storing any methamphetamine paraphernalia. Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(a)(4)
(2016). Appellant also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion
for judgment of acquittal and convicting her of a charge that the state dismissed
in a plea agreement. We reverse., In June 2017, when appellant Jessica Lynn Maack
and her two children had nowhere else to live, they stayed in her mother-in-law's
home. Maack's husband, who is the father of her two children, owed a local drug
dealer thousands of dollars for drugs. To pay off his debt, Maack's husband, who
permanently lived in his mother's home, allowed the dealer to live in the basement
rent-free. The dealer lived in the home for about ten months, but he was in and
out of jail during that time. Maack knew that when the dealer stayed there, he continued
to deal drugs out of his basement bedroom., After receiving anonymous complaints
about short-term traffic coming in and out of the home, the police performed a "garbage
pull" at the residence. In the garbage, police found drug paraphernalia and items
that tested positive for methamphetamine. Relying on that evidence, the police obtained
a search warrant and searched the home. The following people were present at the
time of the search: Maack and her two children, the dealer and two of his children,
and a female adult and one of her children (who were also temporarily living there).
The police found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the dealer's private
bedroom in the basement. The police also found marijuana and a marijuana pipe in
Maack's bedroom upstairs., Maack admitted to the police that she once took a hit
from a methamphetamine pipe in the dealer's bedroom. She told the police that she
attempted to find a better home for her children but that it was difficult because
she earned only $10.50 an hour and had nowhere else to go. She told police that
she refused to get involved in the drug-dealing business and hoped to save enough
money to permanently move away from her mother-in-law's home., After closing arguments,
Maack moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state failed to prove that
she knowingly stored methamphetamine paraphernalia because she did not exercise
any control over the paraphernalia found in the dealer's bedroom. The district
court denied the motion, and the jury found Maack guilty. The district court entered
convictions on *793three counts: storing methamphetamine paraphernalia in a child's
residence, petty misdemeanor possession of a small amount of marijuana, and petty
misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. This appeal follows., Maack argues
that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she
engaged in storing methamphetamine paraphernalia in a home where she lived with
her children. She argues that mere knowledge that paraphernalia is being stored
does not amount to engaging in the activity of storing methamphetamine paraphernalia
under Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(a)(4). Her argument is two-fold: whether knowledge
is sufficient for a conviction under subdivision 2(a)(4), and whether the evidence
that she knew paraphernalia was stored in the home and used it on one occasion is
sufficient to convict her of engaging in the activity of storing the paraphernalia.,
Minnesota law provides, "No person may knowingly engage in any of the following
activities in ... the residence of a child[:] ... storing any methamphetamine paraphernalia."
Minn. Stat. § 152.137, subd. 2(a)(4). The interpretation of this statute is one
of first impression. Because the terms "engage in" and "storing" are not defined
by the statute, we first address whether there is an ordinary usage of these terms,
which provide the terms' plain meanings. See Occhino v. Grover , 640 N.W.2d 357,
359 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002). "And ordinary usage may
be determined with the aid of dictionary definitions." State v. Larson , 895 N.W.2d
655, 658 (Minn. App. 2017), review denied (Minn. July 18, 2017). "Engage" means
"[t]o employ or involve oneself; to take part in; to embark on." Black's Law Dictionary
646 (10th ed. 2014). It also has the meaning "[t]o involve oneself or become occupied;
participate." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 591 (5th
ed. 2011). The verb to "store" means "[t]o keep (goods, etc.) in safekeeping for
future delivery in an unchanged condition", *794(Black's Law Dictionary 1646 (10th
ed. 2014) ) and "[t]o reserve or put away for future use" (The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language 1720 (5th ed. 2011) )., Using these definitions,
we conclude that the statute is not ambiguous and the plain meaning of Minn. Stat.
§ 152.137, subd. 2(a)(4), prohibits a person from participating and taking part
in the activity of keeping methamphetamine paraphernalia for future use in a child's
residence. The statute specifically requires proof that a person be engaged in,
and not merely aware of, the unlawful activity occurring in a child's home.1 Based
on our conclusion that participation is required to meet the statutory definition
of storing methamphetamine paraphernalia, we conclude that mere knowledge that another
person is storing paraphernalia in a private bedroom of the home does not meet the
statutory definition., Having decided that participation in the activity of storing
methamphetamine paraphernalia is required under the statute, we turn to the question
of whether the evidence was sufficient to support Maack's conviction. We undertake
a "painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient" to support the conviction.
State v. Ortega , 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). We assume
that "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the
contrary." State v. Caldwell , 803 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption
of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably
conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Ortega , 813 N.W.2d
at 100., The circumstances proved that implicate Maack include: she knew that the
dealer dealt drugs out of his private bedroom in the basement, she used a methamphetamine
pipe in the home on one occasion, her lock (which was still in its package) was
found in the dealer's bedroom, and she entered the dealer's room during the search
to find clothes for his children., The state contends that based on the following
circumstances proved we should find sufficient evidence that Maack had dominion
and control over the paraphernalia: (1) when the police asked Maack to locate items
for all of the children, she went into the dealer's bedroom, and (2) the police
found a lock that belonged to Maack in the dealer's bedroom. Both instances fail
to support a reasonable inference that she was engaged in the activity of storing
methamphetamine paraphernalia in the dealer's bedroom. First, because the children
were being removed from the home, Maack went into the dealer's bedroom during the
search to find items for the dealer's children that would presumably be found in
that room. Second, Maack told police that she wanted the dealer to lock his bedroom
door to keep the children away from his drug-dealing business and left the lock
there for that purpose.