Cited by

A year after Crawford, we considered whether the admission of a dying declaration violates a defendant’s ri ght to confrontation in State v. Martin , 12 We first acknowledged that footnote six of the Crawford decision did not “squarely hold that an exception exists under Crawford for dying declarations.” Martin, d at 585.

The state 4 State v. Martin , (the victim died within an hour of arriving at the hospital ); Bergeron, d at 923 (the victim died within two hours of making the statement that the district court found was a dying declaration); -56 (Minn. 1967) (victim died more than three hours a

-83 (Minn.2005) (applying the plain error doctrine to a Confrontation Clause issue).

See State v. Martin (Martin I)

-83 (Minn.2005) (applying plain error analysis to Confrontation Clause issue); (applying plain error analysis to hearsay question).

Despite the general Knaffla bar, " ‘a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that cannot be decided on the district court record because it requires additional evidence need not be brought on direct appeal and may be brought in a postconviction petition.’ ” (), , 265 n. 5 (Minn.2008).

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must demonstrate that “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.

1354 ; -86 (Minn.2005) (finding a continuing exception for dying declarations).

(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.