Cited by

(noting that reversal and remand for a new trial “in the interests of justice is li mited to exceptional circumstances” (quotation omitted)).

4 D E C I S I O N “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconvi ction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

As happened here, “[w]hen a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

–44 (Minn. 2012), but the case falls far short of supporting his theory.

First, to support his claim that he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the prosecutors intimidated his expert witness, -50 (Minn. 2012).

D E C I S I O N When an appellant stays a direct appeal in order “to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

D E C I S I O N I. Standard of Review When a defendant files a direct appeal and then moves to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief, “we review the postconviction court ’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

(“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconvict ion relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”).

“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

State v. Beecroft , , 846 (Minn. 2012).

839 (Minn. 2012) (stating that if fact-finders are exposed to o pinions of the state’s expert witnesses, a defendant must be provided with an equal opportunity to present the opposing views of the defendant’s expert).

See State v. Beecroft , , 846 (Minn. 2012).

“Whether a due process violation has occurred presents a question 4 of constitutional law, which we review de novo.”

“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

When a defendant files a direct appeal and then moves to stay the appeal to pursue postconviction relief, “we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direc t appeal.”

“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

rgues that the state impermissibly badgered her during cross-examination, relying on State v. Beecroft, which states, “in determining whether the State has infringed 7 on a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense by interfering with a witness,” appellate courts consider “whether the government actor’s interference with a witness’s decision to testify was substantial.” (quotation omitted).

d 814, 836 (Minn. 2012).

DECISION I. Validity of the Guilty Plea “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”

A due-process violation “presents a question of constitutional law, which [is] review[ed] de novo.”

United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1228-29 (5th Cir. 1986) (applying the plain-error standard when the defendant failed to object to alleged witness interference and concluding that the defendant’s due process rights were not violated); (plurality opinion) (applying the plain-error standard to the defendant’s witness-interference claim absent objection on due process grounds at trial); (explaining that when a defendant does not object, we have the discretion to consider the unobj

“When a defendant 2 initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that [they] apply on direct appeal.”

2 DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [an appellate court] review[s] the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that [it] appl[ies] on direct appeal.”

-39 (Minn. 2012) (stating that the “right of a defendant to present a complete defense is an essential principle of our criminal justice system and is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution”)

4 DECISION I. Postconviction relief “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.” review denied (Minn. Sept.

DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”