Cited by

7 We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion “even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.” Carbo, d at 123 ().

404(a)(2), such as the victim’s reputation for violence, to show that the victim was the aggressor or “that the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm,”

(explaining the cumulative-error doctrine).

The district court’s reasoning on the fourth prong is consistent with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s holding that “[e]vidence of a victim’s reputation for violence is admissible in a self-defense case to show that the defendant was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm, provided that the defendant knew of the victim’s reputation.” (emphasis added).

Reviewing courts may reverse and order a new trial “when the cumulative effect of [trial] errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the 44 scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.”

(“[A] prosecutor does not ‘represent’ the victim.”).

“A criminal defendant has the right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” accord U.S. Const. amend.

The abuse-of-discretion standard applies “even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.”

(concluding that front deck was part of Penkaty’s dwelling in defense-of-dwelling claim); State v. Gardner, 104 N.W.

(“On plain error review, speculation as to prejudice is not sufficient.”); (“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotation omitted)).

An appellant is “entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying appellant a fair trial.” d 85, 91 (Minn. 1998)

We review the evidentiary rulings of the district court for an abuse of discretion, “even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.”

But “[c]umulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it.” (quotation omitted); (“A party is entitled to a particular jury instruction if evidence exists at trial to support the instruction.” (quotation omitted)).

“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effe ct of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” 12 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).

This right “includes the ability to present the defendant’s version of the facts through witness testimony.”

State v. Mosley , State v. Penkaty

“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (M inn.

“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” (quotations and alterations omitted).

Johnson further relies upon State v. Penkaty , contending that the case provided that an open-air deck was part of defendant’s dwelling and he had no duty to retreat.

The state “may not seek a conviction at any price” because prosecutors are “minister[s] of justice whose obligation is to guard the rights of the accused as well as to enforce the rights of the public.” Ramey, d at 300 ().

“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudi ce by producing a biased jury.” State v. Penkaty , (quotation omitted).

(a stabbing case holding that denying the defendant’s request for an instruction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree culpable-negligence manslaughter was one of several errors that, cumulatively, denied the defendant his right to a fair trial ).

A criminal defendant may be entitled to a new trial if “the cumulative effect of [the] errors was [not] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” even though “the impact of any one of [the] errors, standing alone, may not have affected the verdict.” State v. Penkaty

Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 295, 106 S. Ct. 634, 640 -641 (1986); (“Evidence that a defendant exercised his rights to remain silent .

State v. Hill , ; (noting that we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to evidentiary rulings that invoke constitutional rights).

“Cumulative error exists when the cumulative effect of the errors and indiscretions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” State v. Penkaty , (quotation omitted) .