Cited by

We have held that “evidentiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial differs materially from that at the time of the former ruling.”

“The defendant bears a heavy burden of persuasion on the third prong, which is satisfied if the defendant shows that the error was prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case.”

“[E]videntiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial differs materially from that at the time of the former ruling.”

(noting that unobjected-to errors are reviewed under the plain-error standard).

See, e.g., Andersen, d at 441 (affirming admission of 7 relationship evidence to demonstrate victim’s past fearful interactions with defendant); (affirming admission of relationship evidence to provide context for why victim recanted, explain victim’s confusion about exact locations and times, and impeach defendant’s credibility).

19, 2016) (expressing concern “about the potential prejudice” from relationship evidence that is “more violent” than the charged conduct); (noting that a victim’s detailed description of “harrowing incident” of past domestic abuse was “dramatic and prejudicial” to defendant).

(concluding no plain error where the relationship evidence provided context to a challenge to the witness’ credibility); (observing that “the district court’s cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely im

29, 2008); (determining that the district court did not err by admitting “extensive evidence” of a “troubled, long-term relationship” to demonstrate the context of the relationship).

We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion when the evidence was objected to at trial, and we review unobjected-to errors for plain error

-83 (Minn. App. 2008) (concluding that when district court makes limited ruling on motion in limine not renewed by objection during trial, we review under plain error).

to support its position.

“[E]videntiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial differs materially from that at the time of the former ruling.”

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) ( affinning admission of evidence of prior abusive behavior that highlighted appellant's attempts to manipulate, control, and restrain victim); (affinning admission of evidence of prior abusive conduct that provided context for victim's behavior).

6 As with other evidentiary rulings, a review ing court generally de fers to the trial court’s discretion in admitting relationship evidence, and reviews unobject ed-to evidence for plain error, State v. Word

-84 (Minn. App. 2008) (holding that evidence of prior domestic conduct is admissible so jurors can put the crime in context and better judge the credibility of the principals).

27, 2010); State v. Word , -86 (Minn. App. 2008) ( reasoning that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was strong, the pro secutor did not attempt to use the relationship evidence for an improper purpose, and the district court instructed the jury not to convict the defendant for any prior offenses).

State v. Word , -84 (Minn. App. 2008).

This court has also concluded that “evidentiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear, or when the context at trial differs materially from that at the time of the former ruling.”

“The plain-error standard is more difficult for an appellant to meet than the standard for objected -to error, ” State v. Word , d 776, 782 (Minn. App. 2008), and 5 requires the defendant to show (1) error ; (2) that was plain ; and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights .

See, (recognizing that “evidentiary 11 objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional or unclear”).

State v. Word , , 783 (Minn. App. 2008).

(concluding district court did not err by allowing admission of detailed testimony about “harrowing incident,” that was dramatic and prejudiced defendant, because evidence had substantial probative value); (holding district court did no

In support of his argument, Zinski cited State v. Word , , 785 (Minn. App. 2008), for the proposition that the failure to sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of 634.20 evidence is an error that is plain.

In State v. Word , we held that “[i]n light of our decision in Meldrum, the district court should have issued cautionary ins tructions related to the prope r use of relationship evidence, and the failure to do so represented error that was plain.”

27, 2010) ; see State v. Word , (in analyzing this issue, we also consider whether the prosecutor urged the jury to use the relationship evidence in an improper way); see also Matthews, d at 550 (courts presume that juries follow instructions given by the court).

See State v. Word , , 783 (Minn. App. 2008) (holding that a district court's provisional, qualified, or unclear pretrial rulings are not definitive pretrial rulings).

State v. Word , d 776, 783 (Minn. App. 2008).

Humphrey relies on three cases to support his argument that the district court erred; see McCoy, d at 161; State v. Barnslater , and State v. Word , (M inn.

P. 31.02) ; (applying the plain-error standard of review where the appellant raised a pretrial objection to relationship evidence, the district court made a preliminary ruling, and the appellant failed to object or request a limiting instruction when the evidence was later introduced at trial); State v.

P. 31.02 (permitting appellate review of issues not rais ed to the district c ourt for “[p]lain error affecting a substantial right”)

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014); (stating that “the stringent procedural requirements of rule 404(b) do not apply to section 634.20 evidence” and that “the statute allows much more latitude than the rule in admitting relationship evidence ”).

Cf. State v. Word , - 83 (Minn. App. 2008) (“[E]videntiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive .

-83 (Minn. App. 2008) (“[O]ccasionally the context at trial is more developed and may be different from what was anticipated at the time of the former ruling, justifying .