Cited by

The admission of prior convictions to impeach a testifying witness aids the jury because it allows the jury “to see the ‘whole person’ and thus to judge be tter the truth of his testimony.” (citation omitted); (stating that “general lack of respect for the law,” rather than the nature of the conviction itself, informs the fact-finder about a witness’s credibility).

As to the first factor, “the mere fact that a witness is a convicted felon holds impeachment value.”

To decide whether a plain error affected a n appellant’s substantial rights, this court considers three factors: “(1) the strength of the evidence against the defendant; (2) the pervasiveness of the improper conduct; and (3) whether the defendant had an opportunity 9 (or made efforts) to rebut the prosecutor’s improper suggestions.” State v. Hill , -55 (Minn. 2011).

(stating that a defendant’s substantial rights are not violated if there is “no reasonable likelihood that the absence of the misconduct in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury” (internal quotation omitted)).

“We will not reverse a district court’s ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Hill , (quotation omitted).

n.1, 652-53 (Minn. 2011).

“[I]t is the general lack of respect for the law, rather than the specific nature of the conviction, that informs the fact -finder about a witness’s credibility.” State v. Hill

In 7 support of this contention, which states that “any felony conviction is probative of a witness’s credibility, and the mere fact that a witness is a convicted felon holds impeachment value.” Id.

“The mere fact that a witness is a convicted felon holds impeachment value.”

’” State v. Hill , (alteration in origina l) (quoting State v. Jones , ).

The defendant’s due process rights are violated “when the state presents direct evidence that the defendant failed to consent to a search, but not when the state creates an inference based on little more than speculation that a defendant did not consent to the search.” State v. Hill , (quotations omitted).

“Five factors guide the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Rule 609(a).” ().

(4) the importance of the defendant’s testimony, and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.’” (alteration in original) ().

at 302; (explaining that, for prosecutorial-misconduct claims, a modified substantial-rights test is applied).

-53 (Minn. 2011) (adopting a rule that allows witnesses to be impeached with prior unspecified felonies when disclosing the nature of the prior convictions would be overly prejudicial).

the district court issued an order allowing appellant to be impeached with evidence that he had an unspecified felony conviction from 2013,1 a third-degree burglary conviction from 2010,2 and either an aiding and abetting first-degree burglary conviction or a third-degree burglary conviction, th

DECISION “[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions for an abuse of discretion.” d 514, 518 (Minn. 2009); (stating that “[appellate courts] will not reverse a district court’s ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction absent a clear abuse of discretion” (quotation omitted)).

“Five factors guide the exercise of a district court’s discretion under Rule 609(a).” ().

When impeaching with convictions that do not involve dishonesty or false statements, “it is the general lack of respect for the law, rather than the specific nature of the conviction, that informs the fact-finder about a witness’s credibility.”

(“[T]he mere fact that a witness is a convicted felon holds impeachment value.”).