Cited by

the bias of a single juror violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).

We analyze the jury instructions “as a whole to determine whether they fairly and adequately explain the law.”

instance, in situations where a criminal defendant seeks a witness’s medical records, we have said that although medical records are generally protected from disclosure due to the physician-patient privilege, “like other privileges, the medical privilege sometimes must give way to a defendant’s right to 18 confront his accusers.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

the bias of a single juror violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).

If an appellate court finds “reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact, [it] will not disturb those findings.” (quotation omitted).

“The rationale for this rule is that the credibility of an accomplice is inherently untrustworthy.”

“The constitutional right of confrontation guarantees only an opportunity for cross- examination, not cross -examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, that defense might wish.” (quotations omitted); d at 566 (providing that the 10 Confrontation Clause only guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited cross-examination).

d 854, 877 (Minn. 2008).

(noting that findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by “reasonable evidence” (quotation omitted)).

And “[i]f we find reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact, we will not disturb those findings.” (quotation omitted).

“The constitutional right of confrontation guarantees only an opportunity for cross- examination, not cross -examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” (quotation omitted).

In those cases, we have required “some plausible showing that the information sought would be both material and favorable to his defense.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); –73 (Minn. 2008).

“If we find reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact, we will not disturb those findings.” d 854, 870 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

If the evidence reasonably supports the district court’s findings, “we will not disturb those findings.”

Under the clearly erroneous standard, we will uphold findings of fact so long as we find “reasonable evidence” in the record to support them and are not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotations omitted).

We will not set aside a district court’s factual finding unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” State v. Evans , (quotation omitted).

ecords sought will be favorable and material to his defense.” Appellate courts review a district court’s denial of a motion for in camera review for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court’s decision is contrary to 13 law or “is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted); (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to review a district court ruling on a motion for in camera review).

We give great deference to a district court’s factual determinations and will not set them aside unless we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

See, -79 (Minn. 2008) (citing Hodgson and holding that the appellant’s “right to a fair trial was not violated because of the spark-of-life evidence” that “does not appear to have been an attempt to get the jury to decide the issue based on passion or prejudice” and that “was relevant to an issue in the case”).

the bias of a single juror violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).

A district court’s denial of a Paradee motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court’s decision applies “an erroneous view of the law” or “is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted) ; (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to review district court ruling on a Paradee motion).

We will not disturb a district court ’s findings i f there is “reasonable evidence to support the [district] court ’s findings.” State v. Evans , (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

We will not disturb the district court’s findings, including credibility findings, when there is “reasonable evid ence” to support the m. State v. Evans , (noting an appellate court reviews a postconviction court’s credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard’s “high threshold”).

“If we find reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings of fact, we will not disturb those findings.” (quotation omitted).

See , (race); Munt, d at 577–78 (mental illness); Fraga, d at 623–24 (previous knowledge).

the bias of a single juror violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).

(holding that if the jury’s findings are supported by reasonable evidence, the appellate court will not disturb those findings).

A defendant does not meet his burden to show that records contain information that is material and favorable to his case if he offers “only argument and conjecture.”

State v. Evans , (quotation omitted).

d 854, 870 (Minn. 2008).

After Paradee, we have since applied the balancing test to evaluate whether privileged medical records should be disclosed in State v. Hummel

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).