Cited by

State v. Schulz , , 478 (Minn. 2005).

When balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is 5 evidence that persuades , by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage .”

more probable or less probable than it would be without the evi dence.”); (“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”).

6 “Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”

But unfair prejudice “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely damagi ng evidence; rather unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).

Unfair prejudice “is not merely da maging evidence, even severel y damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

Unfair prejudice is not established where evidence is 13 simply highly damaging ; rather, unfair prejudice occurs when evidence “persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.” d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).

Spreigl evidence is prejudicial by nature, but the balancing analysis for unfair prejudice focuses on whether the evidence “persuades by illegitimate m eans, giving one party an unfair advantage.” State v. Schulz

When we consider the balance between the probative value of evidence against its potential for prejudice, we note that unfair prejudice “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.” State v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).

Unfair prejudice “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.” State v. Schulz , d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005).

“Evidence is relevant and has probative value when it, in so me degree, advances the inquiry.” State v. Schulz

When balancing probative value against potential prejudice, unfair prejudice “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 “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.” State v. Schulz

“Evidence is relevant and has probative valu e when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”

Rulings on “whe ther evidence is improperly cumulative[] are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”

Unfair prejudice “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 “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.” State v. Schulz

In balancing the probative value of Spreigl evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, unfairly prejudicial evidence “is not merely damaging evidence, even severely d amaging evidence, ” but instead “is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”

401 (noting.that “relevant evidence” is evidence with “any tendency to *275 make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence” (emphasis added)); (stating that evidence is relevant when it “warrants a jury in drawing a logical inference assisting, even though remotely, the determination of the issue in question”).

Unfair prejudice “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.”

401 (defining relevant evidence); (stating that evidence is relevant “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”).

“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).

“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 not merely damaging evidence, even severely damaging evidence; rather, unfair prejudice is evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.’” Bell, d at 641 ().

“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.”

“The district court has a wide range of discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence.”

403, which provides that “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.” Evidence has probative value “when it, in some degree, advances the inquiry.”

403, unfair prejudice results from “evidence that persuades by illegitimate means, giving one party an unfair advantage.”