Cited by

(explaining that the supreme court need 4 Not every assertion that a constitutional right has been violated makes it so.

“When determining whether a jury verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of evidence, [appellate courts] consider the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.”

When determining whether a verdict was surely unattributable to an erroneous admission of evidence, appellate courts “consider the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defendant.” (quotation omitted).

(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“On appeal, a defendant has the burden of proving not only that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence in question, but also that he was prejudiced by the admission of the evidence.”).

d 616, 620-21 (Minn. App. 2008), aff’d

“When the error does not implicate a constitutional right, a new trial is required only when” the wrongfully admitted evidence “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.”

“An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.”

If an alleged error does not implicate a constitutional right, a new trial is required only if the error “substantially influenced the jury ’s verdict.”

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2020); -27 (Minn. 2015); -21 (Minn. App. 2008), ajf'd, d 883 (Minn. 2009).

(citing State v. Scott , ).

2(a)(1), (3) (2016); aff’d

“When the error implicates a constitutional right, a new trial is required unless the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” State v. Sanders , d 883, 887 (Minn. 2009).

See State v. Sanders , d 883, 889 n.5 (Minn. 2009) (“When an alleged evidentiary error is harmless, an app ellate court need not address the merits of the claimed error.”).

” But Sanders actually st ates that “[o] n appeal, a defenda nt has the burden of proving not only that the district court ab used its discretion in admitting the evidenc e in question, but also that he was prejudiced by the admission of the evidence.” Id.

When an error implicates a constitutional right, “a new trial is required unless the [s]tate can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”

When an error implicates a constitutional right, “a new trial is require d unless the [s]tate can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” State v. Sanders , d 883, 887 (Minn. 2009).

See State v. Sanders , , 889 n.5 (Minn. 2009) ("When an alleged evidentiary error is harmless, an appellate court need not address the merits of the claimed error.").

In determining what effect erroneously admitted evidence had on the verdict, the reviewing court considers “the manner in which the evidence was presented, whether it was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether the defense effectively countered it.” Townsend v. State , see also State v. Sanders , .

“An error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury’s verdict was surely unattributable to the error.”

“When [an evidentiary] error implicates a constitutional right, a new trial is required unless the State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.”