Cited by

See, -50 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that a video recording of the defendant’s interview with police was prominent because the prosecutor mentioned it in the state’s opening statement, closing argument, and on direct and cross-examination of witnesses to point out inconsistencies in the defendant’s statements).

at 56 (concluding that challenged statements occupying 12 pages of 300-page trial transcript were not prominently presented); State v. Al-Naseer, 8 -50 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that evidence was prominently presented because state mentioned it during opening statement, closing argument, and during direct and cross-examination).

We consider five factors: (1) the “manner in which the evidence was presented,” (2) “whether it was highly persuasive,” (3) “whether it was used in closing argument,” (4) “whether it was effectively countered by the defendant ,” and (5) “whether other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.” Weaver, d at 80 1 (d 744, 748 (Minn. 2005)).

6 “In the context of careless driving, carelessness is synonymous with ordinary negligence.” ( and construing Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd.

–50 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that a video recording of the defendant’s interview with police was prominent because the prosecutor mentioned it in the State’s opening statement, closing argument, and on direct and cross-examination of witnesses to point out inconsistencies in the defendant’s statements).

505, 506 (Mass. 1919)); (recognizing that Bolsinger “adopted” the Altman definition of gross negligence).

constitutional standard, an appellate court considers several factors: (1) “the manner in which the evidence was presented,” (2) “whether it was highly persuasive,” (3) “whether it was used in closing argument,” (4) “whether it was effectively countered by the defendant,” and (5) whether there is “overwhelming evidence of guilt.” Caulfield, d at 314 ().

(“To determine whether a defendant engaged in gross negligence .

“Gross negligence is a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence.” (quotation omitted).

Caulfield, d at 314 (quoting State v. Juarez , and State v. Al-Naseer , ).4 In determining whether the verdict was surely unattributable to an error, we examine the record as whole, consid ering the following five factor s: (1) how th e evidence was presented; (2) whether the evidence was “highly persuasive”; (3) whether the evidence was highlighted in closing argum

In deciding whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in clos ing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”

(“To determine whether a defendant engaged in gross negligence or ordinary negligence, the defendant’s conduct must be examined.”).

We determine whether the verdict can be attributed to the error by considering “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was e ffectively countered by the defendant.” (Mi nn.

In order to determine whether the guilty verdicts were surely unattributable to the erroneous admission of Luby’s statements, we consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by defendant.”

ving conduct was negligent, Vadner contends that it did not “represent the complete lack of care that characteri zes the substantially higher standard of gross negligence.” “Gross negligence” requires “very great negligence, or the abse nce of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care.” (quotations omitted); see State v. Al-Naseer , (“Although Bolsinger was decided in 1946, the principles set out there are still va lid today.”).

However, “[r]eckless conduct is treated as separate from negligence.” State v. Bolsinger , 221 Minn. 154, 160

(“Ordinary and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention”) (quotation omitted); , review denied (Minn. Feb.

Gross negligence “amounts to indifference to present legal duty, and to utter forgetfulness of legal obligations so far as other persons may be affected.” (quotation omitted).

“When determining whether a jury verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of evidence, the reviewing court considers the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”

To determine the impact of an erroneous admission of evidence, a court examines “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”

In determining whether the verdict was surely unattributable to error, we consider the following four factors: the “manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was ef *726 fectively countered by the defendant.”

But we also consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing 17 argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”

In deciding whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we consider “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”