Cited by

“Opening the door occurs when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotations omitted).

“Opening the door occurs when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotations omitted).

would have been improper.” Indeed, in State v. Valtierra, the supreme court held that the “district court erred by instructing the jury on the permissive inference that may be drawn from evidence of flight.”

He cites for support the supreme court’s

Under the harmless-error standard, a new trial is warranted “only when [an] error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

The doctrine is also based on the proposition that “the factfinder should not be presented with a misleading or distorted representation of reality.” (quotation omitted).

warrant a new trial only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

creates in the opponent a right to respond with material th at would have otherwise been inadmissible.” State v. Valtierra

“The opening -the-door doctrine is essentially one o f fairness and common sense, based on the proposition that one party should not have an unfair advantage and that the factfinder should not be presented with a misleading or distorted representation of reality.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that error that did not substantially influence the jury’s decision does not require reversal).

See State v. Bailey , -36 (Minn. 2006).

The supreme court has found that a victim’s identifying statement can be “the most powerful evidence of [] guilt.”

This questioning can involve otherwise inadmissible matters if necessary to prevent the defens e from obtaining an “unfair advantage” or 14 “present[ing] a misleading or dist orted representation of reality.” State v. Valtierra , (quo tation omitted).

“Whe ther one party to a conspiracy to burgle could have reasonably foreseen that the other might commit an assault in the event of such an encounter or interruption is a question of fact for the jury.” The Minnesota accomplice corroboration in struction—the instruction not given in this case—requires the jury to answer two questions.

Even if we assume without deciding that the district should have held a hearing, the improper admission of DNA evidence is harmless if it “did not have a significant impact on the verdict.” State v. Nielsen , (explaining that an evidentiary error is harmless unless it “substantially influences” the jury’s decision) (citation omitted) (internal 1 The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure generally do not provide clear guidance to courts or lawyers on what

“Opening the door occurs when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).

And, even when the witness is the criminal defendant, the rule against admitting the underlying facts “is not an iron-clad rule,” and admission “must be left largely to the discretion of the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).

see United States v. Gilmore, 553 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[P]rior felony convictions more than ten years old may be used to impeach by contradiction even if they do not satisfy [r]ule 609’s bala ncing and notice conditions.”).

“The opening -the-door doctrine is essentially one of fairness and common sense, based on the proposition that one party 5 should not have an unfair advantage and that the factfinder should not be presented with a misleading or distorted representation of reality.” (quotation omitted).

“Opening the door occurs when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmi ssible.” State v. Valtierra , (quotation omitted).

(quotations and citations omitted).

(stating that opening the door occurs when a party introduces certain material that permits the opposing party to respond with inadmissible material in order to avoid an unfair advantage).

Evidentiary errors in admitting testimony “warrant a new trial only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” (quotations omitted).

& n.4 (Minn. 2006) (noting higher standard for harmless error on review for constitutional error in admission of evidence and stating that “[defendant] does not argue that the error affected his constitutional rights, so we inquire only whether the verdict was substantially influenced by the error”).

(“Opening the door occurs when one party by introducing certain material .

creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting 8 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice-Criminal Law and Procedure § 32.90, at 691 (4th ed.2012)).

“Opening the door occurs 5 when one party by introducing certain material creates in the opponent a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotations omitted).