Cited by

I. “When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence,” we consider “whether the fact finder could have reasonably concluded that [the] defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have said that a pattern of abuse is shown with evidence that “suggests” the defendant’s “regular way of acting” is “by committing domestic abuse.”

(explaining requirements for a “qualified interpreter” under the sections 611.30-34 in challenge to uncertified interpreter).

See State v. Sanchez-Diaz , , 835 (Minn. 2004) ("A defendant bears the burden of proving that the translation was inadequate.").

835 (Minn. 2004) (stating that violation of statutory right to interpreter “does not require the application of the exclusionary rule ”); see also State v. Mitjans , -75 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Feb.

We will interfere with the district court’s sentencing discretion only when “the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” McLaughlin, d at 715 () (internal quotation marks omitted).

For purposes of section 609.185(a)(6), we have defined the phrase “past pattern” as conduct consisting of two or more prior acts that are proximate in time to each other and reflect “a regular way of acting.” -55 (Minn.2013)

“Defendants have a due process right to a fair trial and a defendant is entitled to a new 6 trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [a defendant] a fair trial.” (quotation omitted) (brackets in original).

ussier’s argument that the evidence does not provide a proper factual basis to support two elements of domestic abuse murder: “past pattern of domestic abuse” and “extreme indifference to human life.” In order to be guilty of first-degree domestic abuse murder, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant engaged in a “past pattern of domestic abuse.” see also Minn.Stat.

“When reviewing a claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” (“The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.”).

stands for the proposition that the “pattern” element is satisfied by proving that the defendant committed at least two acts of abuse.

“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

(stating that prudent police investigators should comply with the statutory requirements for language services); Mitjans, d at 831 (stating that “[i]n the future, prudent police investigators * * * are advised to comply with the statutory requirements” for language services); State v. Vu, 339

Generally, we “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense” or “unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotations omitted).

front of you.” Dunnom further testified that triangulation “is a danger signal because that can mean either robbery, at best, or a murder, at worst.” Evidentiary rulings “ ‘rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.’” ().

Evidentiary rulings “ ‘rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” ().

We have established that “[rjulings on evi-dentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” ().