Cited by

See State v. O’Meara, n.1 (Minn. App. 2008).

The supreme court has held that “admission of relationship evidence was not error, despite the fact that the trial court did not, on the record, engage in the probative value versus potential prejudice balancing test.” see also State v. O’Meara, (concluding that the district court’s failure to “recite the required balancing test” was “not erroneous”).

see also State v. O’Meara, (stating that a district court’s decision as to whether multiple offenses were committed as part of a single behavioral incident for the purpose of section 609.035 entails factual determinations that will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous).

when the defendant previously has been acquitted of criminal charges based on that conduct.”

The determination of whether offenses arise out of a single course of conduct “involves an examination of all the facts and circumstances.” State v. O’Meara

“When challenging a district court’s evidentiary ruling, an appellant must establish both that the district court abused its discretion and that, as a consequence, the appellant was prejudiced.” State v. O’Meara

Appellate courts apply a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s factual findings 9 underlying the determination of whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

We apply a clear-error standard of review to a district court’s factual findings underlying the determination whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident, State v. O’Meara, and a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination, aff’d

“[T[he district court’s determination of whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral incident is a factual determination” that will not be disturbed “unless clearly erroneous.” State v. O’Meara

See State v. O’ Meara, (holding that evidence of domestic conduct “is so unfairly prejudicial that it inherently violates the probative/p rejudicial balancing test” when defendant ha s been tried and acquitted of charges arising from that domestic conduct).

“[T]he district court’s determination of whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral incident is a factual determination that [an appellate court] will not disturb unless clearly erroneous.” State v. O’Meara

State v. O’Meara, 5 This court, however, reviews matters of statutory construction de novo.

State v. O’Meara, - 35 (Minn. App. 2008).

“[T]he district court’s determination of whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral incident is a factual determination that we will not disturb unless clearly erroneous.” State v. O’Meara

Bauer I, d at 477; State v. O’Meara

“[T]he district court’s determination of whether multiple offenses constitute a single behavioral incident is a factual determination that we will not disturb unless clearly erroneous.” State v. O’Meara

This court has recently held that evidence of similar conduct is inadmissible under section 634.20 if a defendant has been previously acquitted of criminal charges based on that conduct, concluding that “[s]uch evidence is so unfairly prejudicial that it inherently violates the probative/prejudicial balancing test.”