Cited by

First, Clark asserts the district court’s decision conflicts with the supreme court’s

Considering the state’s need for the evidence of the four prior bad acts in the context of balancing the nonexistent probative value of that evidence against its high potential for unfair prejudice—especially given the supreme court’s admonition that even close calls 17 (reasoning that “[t]he prosecutor’s remarks implying that evidence had been falsified and his comment regarding the failure of appellant to explain his absence were absolutely inappropriate and impermissible,” and concluding that

-88 (Minn. 1982) (citing Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928)).

to support his contention that all allegations of false testimony, including claims of erroneous scientific evidence based on new expert testimony, are appropriately considered under Larrison.

The Larrison standard only governs our analysis in cases in which there are 5 - 85 (Minn. 1982) (adopting test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2004)).

-91 (Minn. 1982); see also Strommen, d at 689- 90 (holding that the prosecutor’s misstatement on abandonment factored into its decision to grant the appellant a new trial).

Gilbert, d at 770; (permitting relief for mistakenly false testimony).

–85 (Minn. 1982) (adopting the Larrison test for postconviction petitions involving false testimony); Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928) (providing a three-part test to determine whether a new trial should be granted because of false testimony).2 But Xiong has not produced newly disc

-85 (Minn. 1982); see also Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928); -27 (Minn. 2019).

Reed, d at 26-27 (-85 (Minn. 1982); Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928)).

We conclude that Andersen did not establish that he is entitled to a , 695 (Minn. 1997), –85 (Minn. 1982) (citing Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 –88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione , 357 F.3d 712, 718 3 (7th Cir. 2004)).

The assessment of whether to grant an evidentiary hearing in recantation cases is guided by the Larrison test we adopted nearly forty years ago in State v. Caldwell , , 584-85 (Minn. 1982) (citing Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82 , 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928) ).

See, e.g. , State v. Caldwell , , 592 (Minn. 1982) (addressing witnesses' exposure to media photographs of *389 defendant before trial); State v. Martin , 297 Minn. 359 , , 766 (1973) (holding that it was prejudicial for a jury to be exposed to the defendant's picture in a mug shot photo album).

-85 (Minn. 1982) (adopting test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), for granting a new trial due to false testimony).

–91 (Minn. 1982) (“[W]here the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” (quotation omitted)); State v

-91 (Minn. 1982) (quoting Reardon, 245 Minn. at 513, d at 195) (other quotation omitted).

to support his claim that he need only show that evidence of SPPDCL problems might have caused the jury to reach a different conclusion.

3 recanted testimony with suspicion because of the possibility that it was obtained through coercion.” n.7 (Minn. 1982).

-87 (Minn. 1982) (adopting the test set forth in Larrison).

-87 (Minn. 1982) (adopting the test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928)); (explaining that the Larrison test applies to witness recantations and, “more generally, ...

-85 (Minn.1982) (adopting the test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928)).

[T]he party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.” (quoting Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928)).

State v. Caldwell -85 (Minn.1982).

‘would probably.’” , 585 n. 8 (Minn.1982) (quoting Kyle v. United States, 297 F.2d 507, 512 (2d Cir.1961)).

-85 (Minn.1982); see also, (“A three-prong test, known as the Larrison test, is applied to claims of newly-discovered evidence of falsified testimony.”).