Cited by

is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

Evidence “has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

“A fact is relevant if, when taken alone or in connection of other facts, [it] warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”

Probative Value Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

To reverse, “we must find actual prejudice to the defendant’s case.”

-79 (Minn. 2005) (“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” ).

Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

Framed differently, we have said that evidence has probative value “if, when taken alone or in connection [with] other facts, [the evidence] warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.” (emphasis added).

ir prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” A district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting cumulative evidence that is “only marginally repetitive” and “highly probative.”

12 Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”

Therefore, the evidence need only “warrant[] a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”

401; (“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”).

Unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” .

“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

6 illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” d 474, 478-79 (Minn. 2005).

Unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

e 403 provides that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Relevant evidence “has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”

“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).

“[U]nfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).

Unfair prejudice is “not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means.” d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).

“Evidence that is probative, though it may arouse the passions of the jury, will still be admitted unless the tendency of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means overwhelms its legitimate probative force.” -79 (Minn. 2005).

Unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging ev idence, even severely damaging evidence; 8 rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

Unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely dama ging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, givi ng one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz

Appellant has fail ed to demonstrate how the evidence in question is “unfair.” Instead, it is evidence from whic h a jury could have legitimately “drawn a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question.”

But the correct analysis is “unfair prejudice,” which is not “merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence.”

“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

d 474, 477 (Minn. 2005).

When balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even seve rely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz

28, 2012); -78 (Minn. 2005) (holding that a voicemail , left by a defen dant charged with several counts of murder, that said, “Man, it’s Kill [the defendant].

(“Unfair prejudice under rule 403 is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, gi ving one party an unfair advantage.”).

8 (2016) (defining “great bodily harm” as “bodily injury whic h creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm”); (defining evidence as probative “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry”).