Cited by

The Minnesota Supreme Court has embraced the U.S. Supreme Court ’s description of the forfeiture - by-wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the forfeiture-by- wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quotation omitted).

“The Confrontation Clause bars the admission of out-of-court statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to examine the witness.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 38 (2004)).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the forfeiture -by-wrongdoing exception as a narrow doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” (quotation omitted).

See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 (1988) (“a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court” to determine whether “there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment of conviction”) (emphasis added); (concluding that “[a] reviewing court considers all of the evidence admitted by the trial court, whether erroneously admitted or not,” to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient); n.3 (Minn. 14 1991) (“In reviewing sufficiency of evidence, c

“A witness is not ‘unavailable’ for Confrontation Clause purposes ‘unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.’ ” (quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724–25 (1968)).

In the second petition, Reese contended that our court’s (Cox I), and State v. Cox , d 540 (Minn. 2012) (Cox II), created a change in the law that requires a new trial in his case.

(concluding, after reweighing the evidence, that the state “failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence” that a witness was unavailable to testify at the defendant’s trial).

State v. Cox , , 850 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Crawford , 541 U.S. at 62 , 124 S.Ct.

(applying Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008)).

(quotations and citations omitted).

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)