Cited by

An appellate court reviews “evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.”

A criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the appellate court cannot conclude that “the cumulative effect of [the] errors was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” even though “the impact of any one of [the] errors, standing alone, may not have affected the verdict.”

As we explained in Goldenstein, a case 9 This court applies the abuse- of-discretion standard even if a defendant claims that exclusion of evidence deprived him of “his constitutional right to present a complete defense.”

See Peterson, d at 827 (stating that “a number of criminal procedural safeguards are applicable to constructive criminal contempt cases”); see also State v. Penkaty , (recognizing federal constitutional right “to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense”).

“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 d efendant’s prejudice by producing a biased jury.” State v. Penkaty , (quotation omitted)).

“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 7 prejudice by producing a biased jury.” 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.” 1 Even if we analyzed the potential prosecutorial-misconduct issue arguably occasioned by the state having elicited evidence barred by th e district court’s pretrial ruling concerning the 2014 emails, we would still conclude that the error, if any, did not affect

This right necessarily includes the ability to present the defendant’s version of the facts th rough witness testimony.” State v. Penkaty , (citation omitted).

d 185, 206 (Minn. 2006).

(noting that district courts are to rule “promptly” on motions for judgment of acquittal and holding that the district court erred when it reserved ruling on the defendant’s motion for acquittal, which was made at the close of the State’s case, until after the defendant had presented his case).

Appellate courts review 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.”

Appellate courts “review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of 16 discretion standard even when it is claimed that the exclusion of evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to present a complete defense.”

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.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

n.5, 207 (Minn. 2006) (considering the umbrella of self-defense claims including defense of dwelling and defense of others, a defendant “does not bear the burden of proof .

errors and indiscre.-tions, none of which alone might have been enough to tip the scales, operate to the defendants prejudice by producing a biased [grand] jury,’” ( (internal quotation marks omitted)).