Cited by

–15 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that a BCA report was persuasive because it provided “conclusive proof” not provided in other testimony).

The court further noted that Nelson’s position was “in tension” that “confrontation rights are not among those (right to a jury trial and right to counsel) that require an affirmative waiver in writing or on the record,” d 79, 94 (Minn. 2024), that “[t]he right to confrontation … may be waived, including

See, 310 (Minn. 2006) (holding that a BCA lab report, offered at trial to prove that a substance seized from the defendant was cocaine, is testimonial, implicating the defendant’s confrontation rights under Crawford).

The supreme court reflected nearly 20 years ago, “[W]e do not have a single case where we have held that the admission of direct and persuasive evidence on an element of the crime is harmless because other less direct and less persuasive or largely circumstantial evidence is strong.”

(providing that a violation of the Confrontation Clause is subject to the constitutional harmless-error analysis).

onclusion that the error was harmless.” d 452, 468–69 (Minn. 2024) (footnote omitted) ( for the proposition that “unrebutted evidence weighs against an error being harmless, even when ‘the defendant chose to challenge admissibility and not to counter the evidence on the merits’”); (explaining that “unrebutted evidence has greater impact” on the jury’ s verdict, so evidence challenged on its admissibility but not on the merits “weighs in favor of finding the error to be prejudicial”).

(Confrontation Clause); (Due Process Clause).

Fourth, we review whether the defendant was able to “effectively counter the questioned evidence.”

Relevant to appellant’s argument is the third category, “statements that were made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” d 304, 308 (Minn. 2006).

To the contrary, Nelson’s argument is in tension with the supreme court’s statements “that confrontation rights are not among those (right to a jury trial and right to counsel) that require an affirmative waiver in writing or on the record,” and that “[t]he right to confrontation .

d 304, 308 (Minn. 2006).

Caselaw applying section 634.15 clarifies that it is not a rule of admission but a “presumption of admissibility under certain circumstances,” including when “it is prepared and attested by the preparer.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2010) ().

(stating 7 Generally, the defense’s failure to counter the State’s evidence when given the opportunity points to harmless error.

(“A constitutional error does not mandate reversal and a new trial if we determine that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

“[ W]e apply de novo review when determining whether the admission of evidence violates a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.” ().

(discussing other non-exclusive factors that overcome strong evidence of guilt if they support the conclusion that the error was harmful).

16 We consider the following factors when assessing whether the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless: “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.” (quotation omitted).