Cited by

(acknowledging that it is “important” that rule 801(d)(1)(B) “should not be the means to prove new points not covered in the testimony of the speaker” (quotation omitted)).

cmt.); (acknowledging that it is “important” that rule 801(d)(1)(B) “should not be the means to prove new points not covered in the testimony of the speaker” (quotation omitted)).

9 and that ‘“if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning.’” (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)).

Rule 801(d)(1)(B) allows for the admission of prior consistent statements “‘ to enhance the credibility of a witness and as substantive evidence if the court determines the statements would be helpful in evaluating credibility.’” (quoting 11 Peter N. Thompson, Minnesota Practice – Evidence § 801.01 at 439 (3d ed. 2001)).

Generally, when a witness’s prior statement “contains assertions about events that have not been described by the witness in trial testimony, those assertions are not helpful in supporting the credibility of the witness and are not admissible.”

When a witness’s prior statement “contains assertions about events that have not been described by the witness in trial testimony, those assertions are not helpful in supporting the credibility of the witness and are not admissible.”

When a witness’s prior statement “contains assertions about events that have not been described by the witness in trial testimony, those assertions are not helpful in supporting the credibility of the witness and are not admissible.”

d 336, 344 (Minn. 2007) (holding that an erroneously admitted 22 statement was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “[g]iven the evidentiary value the state placed on” it).

State v. Farrah , (M inn.

The purpose of rule 801( d)(1)(B) is to allow a party “ to enhance the credibility of a witness.” (quotations omitted).

“When a suspect asks for counsel, questioning must cease ‘until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.’” (quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484 -85, 101 S.Ct 1880 , 1885 (1981)).

” State v. Farrah , 2 (Minn. 2007).

The prior statement and trial testimony must be consistent and “should not be the means to prove new points not covered 7 in the testimony of the speaker.” State v. Farrah , (quotation omitted).

unless it ‘is not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.’” State v. Farrah , (Gildea, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting EOP–Nicollet Mall, L.L.C. v. C ty.

The purpose of permitting prior statements under rule 801(d)(1)(B) is to allow a party “to enhance the credibility of a witness.” (quotation omitted).

Because the purpose of rule 801(d)(1)(B) is to allow a party to bolster the credibility of a witness, “when a witness’ prior statement contains assertions about events that have not been described in trial testimony, those assertions are not helpful in supporting the credibility of the witness and are not admissible under this rule.”

1 “To protect or facilitate the exercise of constitutional rights, it is the express policy in Minnesota to provide qualified interpreters to assist persons in legal proceedings who are handicapped in communication (now referred to as ‘disabled in communication’).” see also Minn. Stat. § 611.30 (2014).

The purpose of rule 801(d)(1)(B) is to allow a party “‘to enhance the credibility of a witness.’” (quoting 11 Peter N. Thompson, Minnesota Practice – Evidence § 801.01 (3d ed. 2001)).

“[T]he admission of a defendant’s statements to police at trial in violation of Miranda does not require a new trial if the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”

(requiring that the statement be helpful to the factfinder and explaining that “[t]o be helpful .

“Findings of fact surrounding a claimed Miranda waiver are reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions based on those facts are reviewed de novo.” (discussing whether a waiver was valid where the defendant claimed he did not understand English well).

(footnote omitted) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct.

hearsay if the statement is “helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” But we have held that before such statements are admissible that “the witness’s credibility must be challenged and the statement must bolster the witness’s credibility with respect to the challenged aspect.”