Cited by

3 “The threshold question for a Crawford analysis is whether the statements at issue are testimonial.”

“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) .

Minnesota Statutes § 609.18 (2018) provides that “ ‘premeditation’ means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” Our precedent recognizes that “[p] remeditation 12 requires some amount of time to pass between formation of the intent and the carrying out of the act.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[W]hile ultimate opinion testimony is admissible,” an expert’s testimony that a legal definition has been met is “not helpful to the jury because it merely [tells] the jury what result to reach.” State v. Vang

(noting that premediated murder does not require “proof of extensive planning or preparation to kill”).

“The district court abuses its discretion in imposing consecutive sentence s when the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant ’s conduct.”

“If no constitutional right was implicated, we will reverse only if the district court ’s error substantially influence [d] the jury’s decision.” State v. Vang , (quotation omitted).

See State v. Vang , , 578 (Minn. 2009) (noting reviewing courts assume jury followed district court's instructions on weighing testimony).

Also, if the district court’s erroneous ruling does not implicate a defendant’s right to testify, then the error is harmless “if there is no reasonable possibility that it substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted); (stating harmless error standard when constitutional right is not implicated).

A district court abuses that discretion if its jury instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” State v. Vang

See State v. Vang , , 583 (Minn. 2009) (recognizing that the nature of the killing is relevant to an inference of premeditation).

Thus, “[t]he threshold question for a Crawford analysis is whether the statements at issue are testimonial.”

State v. Vang , , 576 (Minn. 2009).

“If no constitutional right was implicated, we will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

See, d 799, 808 (Minn. 2013) (noting the focus of the state’s case and the evidence when viewed in context); -45 (Minn. 2012) (noting the probative value of evidence introduced to anticipate challenges to witness credibility); (noting the probative value of the evidence); (notin g the context of the evidence and the overall weight of evidence against the defendant); 5 (Minn. 2009) (noting the scope of the state’s questions); State

“If no 6 constitutional right was implicated, we will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

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

801(d)(2)(A); n.6 (Minn. 2009).

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

Under the harmless error standard, “[i]f no constitutional right was implicated, [appellate courts] will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

“The district court abuses its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences when the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”

d 566, 584 (Minn. 2009).

“If no constitutional right was implicated, [appellate courts] will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation omitted).

“If no constitutional right was implicated, we will reverse only if the district court’s error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.” (quotation and citation omitted).

d 566, 578 (Minn. 2009).