Cited by

-62 (Minn. App. 2010) (stating that solely aggressive intent is sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of sexual contact).

Appellant first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted the forensic-interview recordings because the factors identified in State v. Ahmed , do not weigh in favor of admitting the evidence under the residual exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Minnesota Rule of Evidence 807.

(stating that aggressive intent alone is sufficient).

Establishing circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness involves an application of the totality- of-the-circumstances approach and “requires a careful balancing of all relevant circumstances surrounding the making of the statement.” Hallmark, d at 292; (setting forth r elevant trustworthiness factors involving child victims).

While a finding of “aggressive” intent often rests on evidence of violence, 262 (Minn. App. 2010) (affirming finding of aggressive intent based on burning of child’s penis), we have expressly recognized that “repeated attempts to accomplish sexual contact” can indicate “sex ually aggressive intent,” In re Welfare of 3 Father also argues that there is insufficient evidence that he a

7 To have engaged in sexual contact, Wallace must have committed acts with “sexual or aggressive intent.” State v. Ahmed , (M inn.

The residual exception under rule 807 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence “allows admission of statements not falling under one of the accepted hearsay exceptions that have ‘equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.’” State v. Ahmed , d 253, 259 (Minn. App. 2010) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

“The burden is on the [appellant] to show that the district court abused its discretion and that the [appellant] was prejudiced thereby.”

“The burden is on the [appellant] to show that the district court abused its discretion and that the [appellant] was prejudiced thereby.”

“Statements made to nongovernment questioners, who are not acting in concert with or as an agent of the government, are considered nontestimonial.” d 253, 259 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).

4 D E C I S I O N “Evidentiary rulings lie w ithin the sound discretion of the district court.”

(“ The focus of rule 807 is the statement, not the testifying witness who heard the statement.”).

“The burden is on the [appellant] to show that the district court abused its discretion and that [appellant] was prejudiced thereby.”

“The relevant circumstances under rule 807 are those circumstances actually surrounding the making of the statements.” (quotation omitted).

On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (citation omitted); –60 (Minn. App. 2010) (reviewing admission of a sexual-abuse victim’s extrajudicial statements for abuse of discretion).

However, “[t]he focus of rule 807 is the statement, not the testifying witness who heard the statement.” (Minn. Q. Okay and you talked to a different officer at the police station?

“The focus of rule 807 is the statement, not the testifying witness who heard the statement.”

(stating that aggressive intent alone is sufficient).