Cited by

d 872, 879 (Minn. 2009).

An appellant must establish that a district court’s evidentiary ruling was both “erroneous and prejudicial.”

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, and we reverse only if “the admission of the evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.” d 872, 879 (Minn. 2009).

An appellate court “will reverse the district court’s ruling if the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.”

See, Andersen, d at 441-42; State v. Lindsey , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

To reverse a district court’s evidentiary ruling, the appellant must prove that admitting the evidence was both “erroneous and prejudicial.”

An appellate court “will reverse the district court’s ruling if the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.”

See, e.g., Andersen, d at 441 (affirming admission of past verbal and physical abuse because it illuminated the relationship between the defendant and the victim and put the alleged crime in the “context” of that relationship); Valentine, d at 637 (same); (affirming admission of relationship evidence that provided context and “helped establish motive, intent, identity, and premeditation”).

[and] such evidence has further probative value when it serves to place the incident for which appellant was charged into proper context.”

(noting that evidence of defendant’s prior threats and abusive behavior provided relevant context to underlying incident).

404(b), relationship evidence is character evidence that may be offered to show the strained relationship between the accused and the victim and is relevant to establishing motive and intent.” (quotation omitted).

t day and would demonstrate “the strained relationship between him and T.E., which in turn provided a possible motive for her to lie.” Relying on State v. Loving, appellant characterizes this evidence as relationship evidence “that may be offered to show the strained relationship between the accused and the victim and is relevant to establishing motive and intent and is therefore admissible.” (quotation omitted).

The appellant “must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

To establish reversible error, McPheeters “must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

The appellant “must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

“Domestic abuse is unique in that it typically occurs in the privacy of the home, it frequently involves a pattern of activity that may escalate accused and the victim [and] is relevant to establishing motive and intent,” (quotation omitted).

Prejudice exists when “the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.”

“For a reversal of a district court’s evidentiary ruling, [an appellant] must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

Gross v. Victoria Station Farms, Inc., ; Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.

“For a reversal of a district court’s evidentiary ruling, [a defendant] must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

Erroneously admitted evidence is prejudicial if “the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision .”

This court “will reverse the district court’s ruling if the error substantially influenced the jury’s decision.”

“For a reversal of a district court ’s evidentiary ruling, [an appellant] must prove that the admission of evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.”

Erroneously admitted evidence is prejudicial if “the error substantially influenced the jury ’s decision.”

Id.; see also State v. Loving , (holding that rulings on foundational reliability are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

“[R]elationship evidence is character evidence that may be offered to show the strained relationship between the accused and the victim [ and] is relevant to establishing motive and intent and is therefore admissible.” (quotation omitted).

Reversal is warranted only when the admission of 6 evidence is erroneous and “substantially influenced the jury’s decision.”

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2016); State v. Loving , , 8 79-80 (Minn. 2009) .

[S]uch evidence has further probative value when it serves to place the incident for which appellant was charged into proper context.” (quotations omitted).

[and] such evidence has further probative value when it serves to place the incident for which appellant was charged into proper context.” 6 (quotations omitted).

We use this term to draw a distinction between the general relationship evidence discussed in State v. Loving , , 879-80 (Minn. 2009), and relationship evidence admitted under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 .

into proper context.” State v. Loving , (quotation omitted).

Evidence of a defendant’s prior acts ma y be relevant for the purpose of illuminating the relati onship of defendant and compl ainant and “to place the incident for which defendant was charged into proper context.” State v. Loving , (quotation omitted).

[and] such evidence has further probative value when it serves to place the incident for which appellant was charged into proper context.” (quotations omitted).