Cited by

In State v. Jackson, despite determining that the admission of a firearm-trace report did not constitute plain error, this court went on to “consider the persuasiveness” of the evidence and address appellant’s argument that the report “significantly affected the verdict.”

(explaining that our court, following the United States Supreme Court’s opinions, has rejected arguments that a Confrontation Clause analysis “turns solely on the nature or scope of a particular hearsay exception”), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

was to provide prima facie evidence of” an element of the offense); -18 (Minn. App. 2009) (determining that a firearm trace report introduced to prove firearm ownership was testimonial), rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009); -800 (Minn. App. 2007) (determining that a lab report introduced to prove the cause of death in a murder trial was testim

rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

State v. Jackson , rev. denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

007) (adopting the holdings in United States v. Torres -Villalobos, 487 8 F.3d 607, 612-13 (8th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Urqhart , 469 F.3d 745, 748-49 (8th Cir. 2006) and applying that reasoning to conclude that admission of Department of Public Service records did not violate the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights because such records were nontestimonial); State v. Jackson , (holding that ad mission of firearm trace report did not violate defendant’s Confrontatio n Clause rights be

[and] the manner in which the evidence was presented.” review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

[and] the manner in which the evidence was presented.” review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

[and] the manner in which the evidence was presented.” review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

To evalu ate the likelihood that the erroneously admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict, we consider “the persuasiveness of that evidence” and “the manner in which the evidence was presented.” State v. Jackson , review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

[and] the manner in which the evidence was presented.” State v. Jackson , review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

Inadmissible evidence is less likely to affect substantial rights if it is “not presented in a manner that [gives] it significant focus.” review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

619 (Minn. App. 2009) (holding a firearm trace report normally maintai ned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was nontestimonial), review denied (Minn. Jul.

State v. Jackson , review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

When “evaluating the reasonable likelihood that the erroneously admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict,” we consider “the persuasiveness of that evidence” and “the manner in which the evidence was presented.” review denied (Minn. July 22, 2009).

fense’s evidence was weak and of highly doubtful credibility; the fact that the prosecutor did not rely on the evidence in question in his closing argument; the fact that the trial court gave an appropriate cautionary instruction when requested, both during the trial and as part of the final instructions; and the fact that other other-crime evidence was properly admitted”); (“In evaluating the reasonable likelihood that the erroneously admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict, this c