Cited by

“The complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.”

And the supreme court has observed that “[t]he complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.”

“The complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.” , 6 49 (Minn. 2018) (“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

When a party requests a mistrial based on the admission of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, we will not reverse a conviction based on the district’s court refusal to declare a mistrial unless “there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); –73, 476 (Minn. 2019) (explaining the rule articulated in Manthey).

A mistrial should be granted only if “there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (quotation omitted).

We review the “denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion.”

“[A] mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

Indeed, “[t]he number and variety of exceptions to the hearsay exclusion make objections to such testimony particularly important to the creation of a record of the trial court’s decision-making process in either admitting or excluding a given statement.”

it [is] particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.”

An evidentiary error constitutes plain error if it is “so clear under applicable law at the time of the conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object—and thereby present the [district] court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice—should not forfeit his right to a remedy.” (quotation omitted).

“A mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (quotation omitted).

The district court “is in the best position to determine whether an outburst creates sufficient prejudice to deny the defendant a fair trial such that a mistrial should be granted.” d 498, 506 (Minn. 2006).

(discussing credit-card debt and financial problems as potential motive 16 for murder); -01 (Minn. 2006) (noting state’s theory that defendant committed murder to collect on a life-insurance policy and obtain other financial benefits in order to pay off gambling debts).

12 The supreme court has held that because of the “complexity and subtlety” of the hearsay rule and its exceptions, raising a timely objection is particularly important as, without an objection, the opposing party is “not given the opportunity to establish that some or all of the statements were admissible under one of the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule.”

-05 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that statements were not “clearly or obviously inadmissible hearsay” and thus that the appellant did not show plain error).

[so] that a full discussion of admissibility [can] be conducted at trial.”

10 should not forfeit his right to a remedy.”

“Hearsay is defined in our rules of evidence as an out -of-court statement offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

See Arredondo, d at 574 (defining hearsay as “an out-of-court statement offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted” (); see also Minn. R. Evid.

The district court should not grant a mistrial unless “a reasonable probability” exists that the trial would have come out differently “if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Manthey , (citing Minn. R. Crim.

He argues that he is entitled to a new trial based on “the prosecutor’s misconduct that permeated his trial.” “A mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (quotation omitted).

“A mistrial should not be granted unless there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (quotation omitted).

If these first three prongs are met, we then determine “whether it is necessary to address the error to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (M inn.