Cited by

(requiring a party to show error and prejudice resulting from that error to prevail on appeal).

548 (Minn. 1994); 63-64 (Minn. 1981) (holding that expert evidence about “battering parent syndrome” should not have been admitted during the defendant’s trial for the third-degree murder of his baby because, although the expert “did not testify that [the defendant] possessed any of these characteristics,” the “obvious purpose

–49 (Minn. 1994) (holding that drug courier profile evidence was not admissible and distinguishing the use of such profile evidence in police investigations from its use in court proceedings); (holding that “battering parent” profile evidence is inadmissible).

“A defendant claiming error in the [district] court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

He cites State v. Loebach for the proposition that “the character of the defendant cannot be attacked until he himself puts it in issue by offering evidence of his good character.” (quoting City of St.

“ A defendant claiming error in the [district] court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

Character evidence is generally prohibited to ensure that the jury does not return a conviction to penalize a defendant “because he is an undesirable person.”

“A defendant claiming error in the trial court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

Character evidence is generally prohibited to ensure that the jury does not return a conviction to penalize a defendant for “past misdeeds or simply because [the defendant] is an undesirable person.”

(noting that the erroneous admission of evidence warrants reversal only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court ’s 7 reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

State v. Loebach , , 64 (Minn. 1981) ("A defendant claiming error in the trial court's reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.").

A reversal on an evidentiary error made by the district court is appropriate when it “substantially influence[d] the [fact-finder] to convict.” d 58, 64 (Minn. 1981).

Reversal is warranted when an evidentiary error “substantially influences the jury to convict.”

Character evidence is generally prohibited to ensure that the jury does n ot return a conviction to penalize a defendant for “past m isdeeds or simply because [the defendant] is an undesireable person.”

“A defendant claiming error in the [district] court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

To prevail, an appellant must show “error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” d 58, 64 (Minn. 1981).

And we will not reverse a conviction because of an evidentiary error unless “the error substantially influences the jury to convict.”

10 for the defendant “to defend against immediate charges [and] disprove or explain his personality or prior actions.”

“A reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury to convict.”

The rule is intended to prevent “the danger that a jury will overvalue the character evidence in assessing the guilt for the crime charged.”

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.”

Litzau, d at 185 (); (battering parent profile evidence inadmissible).