Cited by

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the relationship evidence had significant probative value because the evidence “illuminate[d] the history of the relationship” and “assist[ed] the jury in assessing witness credibility.”

See Nissalke, d at 106-07 (determining no prosecutorial misconduct occurred when comments were on the absence of evidence to support the defense’s theories); (“Prosecutors are allowed to argue that there is no merit to the specific defense raised by the defendant.”); (determining a prosecutor’s remark concerning the lack of evidence and challenging one of the defense’s 9 rebuttal theories did not shift

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that “cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”); (noting that we presume jurors follow the district court’s instructions).

(emphasis added); see also McCoy, d at 161 (holding section 634.20 allows state to admit relationship evidence that “illuminates the history of the relationship between an accused and a victim” and provides context to the charged crime); (Minn. App.

But “[p]rosecutors are allowed to argue that there is no merit to the specific defense raised by the defendant.”

First, King, (quotation omitted), contends that section 634.20 prohibits the admission of evidence of physical abuse against the other children because “[r]elationship evidence is only relevant to ‘illuminate the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or as

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

But there is an exception for what is “commonly referred to as relationship evidence.”

“We presume that juries follow instructions given by the court.”

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

Under the plain-error test, Roper “must show that there was (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

The relationship evidence “may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.”

(referring to the standard outlined in Ramey as “the modified plain-error test”).

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).

5 “Relationship evidence is relevant because it illuminate[s] the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

But the district court may allow the state to present “[e]vidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members,” commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20

(referring to the standard outlined in Ramey as “the modified plain-error test”).

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts the case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

(providing that courts may review unobjected-to evidentiary challenges for plain error).

“Relationship evidence is relevant because it illuminates the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” State v. Matthews, 5 (quotation omitted).

(concluding that the district court acted within its discretion by admitting evidence of 12 incidents of domestic violence as relationship evidence pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20); (concluding that OFP violations were probative evidence o

If the defendant is successful, the burden then shifts to the [s]tate to demonstrate that the error did not affect the defendant ’s substantial rights.” (citation omitted) .

The supreme court found no misconduct in a similar situation when the prosecutor described the defense’s explanation of events as “concocted” and “unbelievable.” d 543, 552 (Minn. 2010) (quotation marks omitted).

The district court’s instructions, “when read as a whole, correctly state[d] the law.” (quotation omitted).

stic conduct, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Relationship evidence can be relevant because it “illuminates the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant,” “help[s] prove motive,” and “assist[s] the jury in assessing witness credibility.” (quotation omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear and obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

If the state fails to satisfy its burden, “[we] then assess[] whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

“If these three prongs are satisfied, the court then assesses whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

But there is an exception for what is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”

We presume that the jury followed the district court’s instructions , see State v. Matthews , and only focused on the June 25, 2022 incident when considering whether to convict.

“If these three prongs are satisfied, the court then assesses whether the error should be addressed to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”

tic conduct, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” This type of evidence “is relevant because it illuminate[s] the history of the relationship between the victim and defendant and may also help prove motive or assist the jury in assessing witness credibility.” d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010).

An error is plain if it is “clear and obvious; usually this means an 5 error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

Appellant challenges the statement, “A failure to complete the entire test is a refusal.” However, “[i]f the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly state the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).