Cited by

But the right to present a defense is subject to the rules of evidence, which are “designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.”

But this right is subject to the rules of evidence, which are “designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.”

ANALYSIS Determining whether to give a jury instruction “lies within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed but for an abuse of that discretion.”

That right, however, “is subject to rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of 8 guilt.”

1(1); (“In Minnesota, every lesser degree of murder is intended by § 609.04 to be characterized as an included offense.”).

This right, however, “is subject to rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.” 5 ; (“A criminal defendant has the constitutional due process right to call and examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by 5 The application of an evidentiary rule may violate the right to present

But the right to present 5 a complete defense “is subject to rules of procedure and evidence.”

d 498, 512 (Minn. 2005) (recognizing unintentional felony murder with assault as the underlying felony as a lesser-included offense of intentional murder).

And Musse’s assertion 8 that he took too much of his prescribed Xanax on the day of the murder does not support his argument because “a person of ordinary self-control does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.” (quotation omitted).

This right is not absolute; it is subject to the rules of evidence “designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.”

2 The facts underlying the murder and Hannon’s conviction are set forth in greater detail in State v. Hannon (Hannon I), and State v. Hannon (Hannon II)

A defendant has a constitutional right to present a complete defens e, Jenkins, 7 d at 224 , but that right is not absolute

“If the defense was not prejudiced by a refusal to issue an instruction, there is no reversible error .” State v. Hannon

However, this right is not absolute, and a defendant is still “subject to rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.” (Mi nn.

A trial court abuses its discretion if it denies an instruction “when evidence exists to support the giving of the instruction.” (quoting Dahlin, d at 598).

“If the defense was not prejudiced by a refusal to issue an instruction, there is no reversible error.”

at 597 ; see State v. Hannon , , 509 (Minn. 2005).

State v. Hannon , , 509 (Minn. 2005).

See State v. Hannon , , 507 (Minn. 2005) (holding Crawford’s “key requirements” fulfilled when initial trial and retrial for which 12 witness was unavailable involved the same theory of the crime and “largely the same” evidence).

1 Among the pieces of evidence later discovered by law enforcement was a bloodstained denim shirt identified as the one that 1 The facts underlying Hannon’s crime are set forth in detail in State v. Hannon (Hannon I), and State v. Hannon (Hannon II)

“The district court has wide discretion to regulate the presentation, examination, and conduct of defense witnesses.”