Cited by

(explaining that risk of unfair prejudice is less in proceedings decided by district court judge rather than by jury because “there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared 7 to a jury of laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of

have his sense of reason overcome by emotion.” d 459, 467 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting bad-acts evidence during a bench trial).

(explaining that “[t]he risk of unfair prejudice to [a defendant] is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared to a jury of laypersons, would use [certain] evidence for an improper purpose or have [their] sense of reason overcome by emotion” and

Smith II, d at 503 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)

(reviewing admissibility of Spreigl evidence).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “the distinction between a jury trial and a bench trial is important.”

(“The risk of unfair prejudice to [the appellant] is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared to a jury of laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of reason overcome by emotion”).

(noting that, although district court judges are not “immune from emotional appeals or the temptation to misuse evidence,” they have “experience and familiarity with the operation of the rules of evidence” that reduce the risk of unfair prejudice).

Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings on hearsay statements for “clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Burrell, 13

(explaining that the “risk of unfair prejudice .

(citations and quotation omitted).

“Evidentiary rulings on hearsay statements are reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.”

While Labatte is correct t hat there is some risk of misu se of evidence by a district court judge, given the judge’s experience and familiarity with the rules of evidence, there is “comparatively less risk.” State v. Burrell

5 justified.2 “Evidentiary rulings on hearsay statements are reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.”

(“[W]e do not agree that a prior bad act must provide the but-for reason for committing the charged offense.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that during bench 13 trials, “judges will set aside ‘extraneous matters’ and decide cases on their merits.” (holding that the distinction between jury trial and bench trial is important and that risk of unfair prejudice is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that a judge would use Spreigl evidence for improper purpose).

In State v. B urrell, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting bad -acts evidence during a bench trial, reasoning that “there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared to a jury of laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of reason overcome by emotion.”

(noting that the risk of the fact finder improperly using evidence is less in court trials).

State v. Burrell , (emphasizing the lessened prejudicial effect of past criminal history being presented to a judge as opposed to a jury).

is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared to a jury o f laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of reason overcome by emotion.”

In a bench trial, “[t]he risk of unfair prejudice to [a defendant] is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that the district c ourt judge, as compared to a jury of laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of reason overcome by emotions.” State v. Burrell

“[W]e review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion.” (providing that evidentiary rulings on hearsay statements are viewed for clear abuse of discretion).

Irwin v. State , , review denied (Minn. Mar.

“[A] reviewing cour t should place great c onfidence in a judge’s ability to follow the law and should not assume that evid ence was considered for an improper purpose without a clear showing.” (quotation omitted).

Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Loan Oak Sportsmen’s Club, Inc.

“The distinction between a jury trial and a bench trial is important.”

would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his sense of reason overcome by emotion.”

d 459, 465 (Minn. 2009).

(“[T]he risk of unfair prejudice [from evidence of prior gang shootings] in the context of a bench trial is .