Cited by

“One way to show purposeful discrimination is to show that a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a prospective minority juror applies equally to a similar non-minority who is permitted to serve.” (citing Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 241 (2005)).

“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.” d 612, 622 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

3 Assuming, without deciding, that a discovery violation occurred, we conclude that, under either of subdivision 1’s disclosure requirements, any violation was harmless because Duncan has 3 A party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” ().

A party also may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” ().

“ Batson’s third step requires two showings of the party making the Batson [objection]: (1) a demonstration that the proffered race-neutral reason is not the real reason for the strike and (2) a demonstration that the real reason was the race of the prospective juror.”

n.8 (Minn. 2009) (disregarding appellant’s argument that evidence was not relevant because it was not raised at the district court) ().

“The doctrine of law of the case ‘ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.’” (-20 (Minn. 1987)).

But, where the defense opens the door, the state may “respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” State v. Bailey , (quotation omitted).

“Issues determined in a first appeal will not be relitigated in the trial court nor re-examined in a second appeal.” (quotation omitted) (applying law-of-the-case doctrine); (concluding law-of-the-case doctrine barred a postconviction claim that had been decided on direct appeal).

Moreover, a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.” ().

But a defendant might make certain arguments or introduce material that “opens the door” to allow the state to “respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).

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

d 612, 623 (Minn. 2007) (applying the law-of-the-case doctrine in a criminal matter ).

(“The doctrine of law of the case ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal 7 issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings .

See State v. Bailey , (explaining that “opening the door” occurs when one party introduces material that allows the other party to respond with otherwise inadmissible material).

ers a race-neutral explanation for the strike, the district court must then determine whether the defendant carried his or her burden “of proving purposeful discrimination,” or in other words, whether the defendant proved that the race -neutral reason given by the state was “merely a pretext for the discriminatory motive.” Diggins, d at 355 ( quotation omitted); (“[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” (quot

5 However, “a defendant might make certain arguments or introduce material that ‘opens the door’ to allow the state to ‘respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible.’” Robideau, d at 400 ().

(citations and quotations omitted).

(concluding defendant opened the door to further questioning by the state in order to correct misleading statements).

(quoting 8 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice— Criminal Law and Procedure § 32.54 (3d ed. 2001))

(stating that a party may not raise, on appeal, “the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory” (quotation omitted)).

(stating that a party may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory”) (quotation omitted)).

(citations and quotations omitted).

(); (“[T]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike.” (quoting Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768)).

(explaining that when one party opens the door “by introducing certain material,” the other party has “a right to respond with material that would otherwise have been inadmissible” (quotation omitted)).

(citations and quotations omitted).

(citations and quotations omitted).

(“[Defendant] acknowledges that he did not object to the instruction on this specific basis, and therefore we review the instruction for plain error.”); (stating that “‘a party [may not] obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated 13 below but under a different theory’” ()).

(citations and quotations omitted).

See, (upholding a conviction of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct when the cause of death was a heart attack suffered by the victim during a sexual assault).

In State v. Bailey, our supreme court stated that “[o]pening 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.”