Cited by

(noting the district court “act[s] as a gatekeeper for the admissibility of evidence”); (“The jury is in the best position to weigh credibility and thus determines which witnesses to believe and how much weight to give to their testimony.”).

(reviewing de novo whether a waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent).

(“Minnesota does not recognize the doctrine of diminished capacity or diminished responsibility.”); d 540, 554 (Minn. App. 2025) (affirming the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony “that the symptoms [defendant] experienced on the date of the incident we

This right, however, “is shaped by 10 the rules of evidence, which are “designed to assure both fairness and reliability in assessing guilt or innocence.” , 235 (Minn. 2010) ().

In considering the admissibility of expert testimony, the district court must determine “whether the testimony is helpful because it ‘will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

(citing Minn. R. Evid 403, 702).

First, appellate courts “must identify the circumstances proved, giving deference to the [fact-finder]’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved.” -42 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

(applying this analysis to first-degree murder); d 412, 423 (Minn. 2007) (applying this analysis to first-degree murder).

Minnesota Statutes § 609.18 (2022) defines “premeditation” as “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.” We have previously held that “[t]hree categories are relevant in determining premeditation: planning activity, motive, and the nature of the killing.”

V, XIV ; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7

District courts have “considerable latitude in selecting jury instructions” and a “refusal to give a re quested jury instructio n is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”

And “we will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.”

at 53–54 (–42 (Minn. 2010)).

“We review evidentiary rul ings of the district court, including the admission of expert testimony, for abuse of discretion.” State v. Anderson , –35 (Minn. 2010).

“First, we must identify the circumstances proved, giving deference to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved b y the State.” State v. Anderson , d 227, 241–42 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

State v. Anderson , -42 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) (citing State v. Griese , , 429 (Minn. 1997) ).

And while generally we review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, State v. Anderson , where the district court’s evidentiary ruling results in the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, the verdict must be reversed if “there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been differe nt if the evidence had been adm

d 227, 235 (Minn. 2010) (citing Minn. R. Evid.

But a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial “is shaped by the rules of evidence.”

at 642 (quoting State v. Anderson , ) (alteration in original).

(“The district court may .

State v. Anderson , , 241 (Minn. 2010).

" (quoting State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) ) ).

State v. Anderson , , 242 (Minn. 2010) ; see also Cox , d at 412 (possessing the murder weapon before the murder was planning activity); State v. Clark , , 423 (Minn. 2007) (bringing the murder weapon to the scene of the murder was planning activity); State v. Austin , , 25 (Minn. 1983) (walking up a

State v. Anderson , , 234-35 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted).

4 -41 (Minn. 2010) (holding that a jury instruction “sufficiently indicated] to the jury that [the defendant] must have formed an intent to kill ...

-38 (Minn. 2010) (- 04 (Minn. 1995)).

When reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, an appellate court first “identif[ies] the circumstances proved, giving deference to the [fact-finder]’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” -42 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, an appellate court first “identif[ies] the circumstances proved, giving deference to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” d 227, 241-42 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).

identify the circumstances proved, giving deference ‘to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.’ ” -42 (Minn. 2010) ().

at 53-54 (-42 (Minn. 2010)).

XIV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7