Cited by

As the party claiming error, Parker bears “the 22 burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

d 470, 483 (Minn. 2009) .

Relevant here, “[a] determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“In determining whether a defendant’s Faretta rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way.” (quotation 11 omitted).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice 6 resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted) .

for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State , .

n.1 (Minn. 2013); d 470, 481 n.5 (Minn. 2009).

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

Moreover, “being the victim of a crime does not, standing alone, create ‘preconceived bias in the mind of the prospective juror.’” ().

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing the error and prejudice resulting from the error.”

“A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State

“A defendant claiming error in the distri ct court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State, 6 (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claim ing error in the district court’ s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsa y exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State

We will not reverse a district court’s evid entiary rulings absent a “clear abuse of discretion.” ( quotations omitted); (reviewing district court’s ruling on hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion).

Holt v. State , (hearsay); (foundation).

“A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

5 “A defendant claiming error in the district court’s reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the pr ejudice resulting from the error.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted ).

The seating of a biased juror constitutes structural error requiring a new trial because that error “undermines the basic structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itself.” Holt v. State , (quotation omitted).

“A defendant claim ing error in the district court’ s 7 reception of evidence has the burden of showing both the error and the prejudice resulting from the error.” (quotation omitted).

5 “A determination that a statement meets the foundational requirements of a hearsay exception is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Holt v. State

“[A]n appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” See Holt v. State , n.5 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Thiele v. Stich , –83 (Minn. 1988)).

rulings generally rest within the district court’s discretion and will not be rever sed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).

See Holt v. State , ( stating individuals may be charged “with aiding an offender after the fact for [their] role in driving a getaway car”).