district court committed reversible error in Minnesota

2008Id. at 891, 894 .

2007State v. Perry, 561 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn.1997).

2015“A defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction before [it is] given to the jury constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal,” but “a reviewing court can reverse if the instruction constituted plain error.” State v. Prtine, 784 N.W.2d 303, 316 (Minn. 2010).

2011Prtine, 784 N.W.2d at 316-17 .

2026“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court,” and appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

2024Minnesota law provides for the admission of relationship evidence “unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20 ; accord State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153, 161 (Minn. 2004) (adopting Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as a rule of 10 evidence).

2017“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence,” this court may “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred by suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

2016We disagree. “[District] courts are permitted considerable freedom when determining how to instruct the jury as long as the jury instruction is not confusing or misleading on fundamental points of the law.” State v. Gutierrez, 667 N.W.2d 426, 434 (Minn. 2003).

2016“The [district] court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” State v. Murphy, 380 N.W.2d 766, 772 (Minn. 1986). “[I]f a jury is confused, additional instructions clarifying those previously given may be appropriate since the interests of justice require that the jury have a full understanding of the case and the rules of law applicable to the facts under deliberation.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2016“The [district] court has the discretion to decide whether to amplify previous instructions, reread previous instructions, or give no response at all.” State v. Murphy, 380 N.W.2d 766, 772 (Minn. 1986). “[I]f a jury is confused, additional instructions clarifying those previously given may be appropriate since the interests of justice require that the jury have a full understanding of the case and the rules of law applicable to the facts under deliberation.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2016Physician-defendants also argue that the court committed reversible error by “suppress[ing]” the question of SMDC’s comparative fault. “[Appellate courts] afford the district court broad discretion when ruling on evidentiary matters, and [appellate courts] will not reverse the district court absent an abuse of that discretion.” Doe 136 v. Liebsch, 872 N.W.2d 875, 879 (Minn. 2015).

2015We have “never categorically prohibited the use of gang expert testimony.” State v. Jackson, 714 N.W.2d 681, 691 (Minn.2006).

2015We have “never categorically prohibited the use of gang expert testimony.” State v. Jackson, 714 N.W.2d 681, 691 (Minn. 2006).

2015Browder argues that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. “[Appellate courts] review a trial court’s refusal to issue a requested instruction for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the refusal resulted in error.” State v. Torres, 632 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn. 2001). “[W]hen a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind.” Minn. Stat. § 609.075 (2012).

2015“A criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial that includes the right to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Minn. 2011) (quotation and citation omitted).

2015Generally, “[t]he district court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint, and its ruling will not be 5 reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Baxter, 686 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn. App. 2004).

2015On appeal, Beaulieu argued for the first time that the district court committed reversible error when it violated a claimed constitutional right “to be advised” of his due process rights under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and when it failed to provide him the rights advisory required by Minn. R.Crim.

2015On appeal, Beaulieu argued for the first time that the district court committed reversible error when it violated a claimed constitutional right “to be advised” of his due process rights under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and when it failed to provide him the rights advisory required by Minn. R.Crim.

2015“Whether due process is required in a particular case is a question of law, which we review de novo.” C.O. v. Doe, 757 N.W.2d 343, 349 (Minn.2008).

2015In addition to his sufficiency of the evidence argument, appellant also alleges that (1) the district court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously decide which of the violations he committed; (2) hearsay and overly prejudicial information about appellant were elicited by the prosecutor; (3) the district court improperly assessed the factors outlined in State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534, 537-38 (Minn. 1978), so as to allow appellant to be impeached with his prior offenses; and Bloomington on one occasion during the relevant time period.

2014“Through the Confrontation Clause, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a defendant the right to be present at all stages of trial.” State v. Sessions, 621 N.W.2d 751, 755 (Minn. 2001).

2014Admission of hearsay Larson argues that the district court committed reversible error in admitting C.W.’s out-of-court statements to the physician assistant—that “the big guy had hurt him” and had “touched his pee-pee and his butt” and that his “pee-pee and butt hurt”— under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception.2 “Generally, a reviewing court defers to the district court’s evidentiary rulings and will not overturn the rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 505 (Minn. 2006).

2011State v. Bolstad, 686 N.W.2d 531, 541 (Minn.2004).