Cited by

(“We assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.”).

Appellate courts “will not disturb a district court’s decision to impose permissive consecutive sentences absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Additionally, the district court instructed the jury on the limits of the expert’s testimony, and “[w]e assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions.”

(explaining that appellate courts assume that a jury followed the district court’s instructions).

Appellate courts “assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.”

You must not consider these convictions as evidence of character of the Defendant, or of conduct of the Defendant, except, as you may think, it reflects on the issue of credibility.” 13 courts “assume that the jury followed the [district] court’ s instructions and properly considered the evidence.”

“Expert opinion testimony is not helpful if the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about that subject whic h is within their experience.” -79 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

(stating reviewing courts assume jury followed district court’s instructions).

“The ultimate question of admissibility under [r]ule 702 is whether the expert’s testimony will help the jury evaluate evidence or resolve factual issues.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.” State v. Vang

A district court abuses its discretion when its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

A district court errs if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

A district court errs if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

An error is harmless “[w]hen there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (“If no constitutional right was implicated, [a reviewing court] will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted)).

See, e.g., Clifton, d at 797–98 (considering evidence of retaliation admitted to explain a witness’s recantation of his account of the defendant’s involvement in the crime); (considering evidence that a witness was threatened to explain the witness’s reluctance to testify).

We presume that juries follow instructions, and we see nothing to overcome that presumption here.

Appellate courts “assume that the jury followed the 15 court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.”

A district court errs if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

“A district court errs when its instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

See id.; d 566, 581 (Minn. 2009) (stating that a district court errs in instructing the jury when its instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law”).

(stating that evidence that the defendant chased the victim, took aim, and fired nine shots supported the jury’s determination of premeditation); (determining that a finding of premeditation was supported when the defendant had grabbed a g

-62, 364 (Minn. 2011); State 8 v. Vang, (stating that a district court errs in instructing the jury when its instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law”).

( stating that a witness who testified about threats against him “made clear that appellant had not threatened him” (emphasis added)).

A district court errs in instructing the jury when its instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” d 566, 581 (Minn. 2009).

To the extent that appellant argues that the state did not have a strong case because it relied on circumstantial evidence, our caselaw is clear that “[c]ircumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as any other evidence.”

(holding that we assume that the jury followed the district court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence); -27 (Minn. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“We assume that the jury followed the court’s instructions and properly considered the evidence.” (“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”) .

An evidentiary error is harmless unless it “substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court errs when its instructions confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.”

702; (“The ultimate question of admissibility under Rule 702 is whether the expert’s testimony will help the jury evaluate evidence or resolve factual issues.” (quotation omitted)).