Cited by

(holding that any error in admitting testimony under the hearsay rules was harmless when the district court indicated in its findings that the testimony did not affect its verdict).

For example, the supreme court concluded that the alleged error of admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence would be a harmless error because the district court “indicated that [the challenged] evidence did not affect its verdict” and “did not include in its findings of fact any information found solely in” the ch

to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]”); (applying same analysis under both the Minnesota and federal Confrontation Clauses).

VI; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6; (applying same analysis under both the Minnesota and federal Confrontation Clauses).

We “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials.” (quotation omitted).

“Neither a specific period of deliberation nor evidence of extensive planning is required to prove premeditation, but the state must prove that some appreciable period of time passed after the defendant formed the intent to kill, during which the statutorily required consideration, planning, preparation, or determination took place.”

When conducting this review, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the factfinder disbelieved any testimony conflicting with that verdict.” ().

12 evidence is not a constitutional error, to obtain such relief, Maye has the burden to show that there is a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

VI (providing that a defendant has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”); (stating the confrontation clause “prohibits the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (quotation omitted)).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, appellate courts “review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials.” Hinton’s brief to this court argues that “the application of the constructive-possession doctrine [is] problematic.” Hinton relies on the following language from Florine: the constructive-possession doctrine applies where the state cannot prove actual possession but “where the inference is strong that the defe

Appellate courts “review criminal bench trials the same as jury tr ials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions ,” State v. Holliday , (quotation omitted), and assume that “the [district court] believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary ,” State v. Caldwell , (quotation omitted) .

“The Confrontation Clause prohibits the ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.’” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53 -54 (2004)).

As for the nature of the killing, we consider “the number of times the defendant used the weapon, the deliberate placement of wounds at vital areas of the victim’s body, the infliction of gunshot wounds at close range, and a defendant’s concern with escape rather than aiding the victim.” –64 (Minn. 2008) (citations omitted).

at 501, 506-07 (affirming conv iction for attempted first-degree murder under transferred intent doctrine); 562-64 (Minn. 2008) (applying doctrine to a ttempted first-degree murder conviction); -15 (Minn. App. 2013) (applyi ng doctrine to attempted second-degree murder conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

“[T]he admission of a w itness’s prior statements does not violate the Confrontation Clause where the witness appears for cross-examination and claims that he or she cannot remember either making the statements or the content of the statements.”

State v. Holliday , ; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 6.

Evidence admitted erroneously is prejudicial if there is a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

“The erroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Holliday , ; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 6 .

The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless and therefore not prejudicial if “there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Holliday , (quotation omitted).

Moreover, “a fact found by the court, although expressed as a conclusion of law, will be treated upon appeal as a finding of fact.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Holliday , , 568 (Minn. 2008).

See State v. Holliday , (“The [e]rroneous admission of evidence that does not have constitutional implications is harmless if there is 10 no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted)).3 III.

11 there is a possibility the victim was not the intended recipient of the specific act.”) (citing State v. Holliday , (affirming first-degree atte mpted- murder conviction based on transferred-intent doctrine)).3 Here, it is possible that A.A.

An erroneous admission of evidence is harmless “if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Holliday , , 568 (Minn. 2008) (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).

The defendant is thus guaranteed “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” State v. Holliday , (quotation omitted).

(“The Confrontation Clause is satisfied by a declarant’s appearance at trial for cross- examination .

See State v. Holliday , (providing that erroneous admission of hearsay testimony that does not have constitutional implications is not reversible error “if there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).