Cited by

Appellate courts “review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected records for an abuse of discretion.”

(quoting State v. Hokanson , ).

Appellate courts “review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected records for an abuse of discretion.”

“[T]her e is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and this court does not review matters of trial strategy or the particular tactics used by counsel.”

“[T]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and [appellate courts] do[] not review matters of trial strategy or the particular tactics used by counsel.”

“An [attorney’s] error based on a failure to notice a potentially erroneous jury instruction is not the kind of error that rises to the level of ‘unreasonable error’ for which [a reviewing] court typically grants a new trial.”

d 340, 353 (Minn. 2012).

However, “there is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and this court does not review matters of trial strategy, or the particular tactics used by counsel.” (quotation omitted).

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

d 340, 358 (Minn. 2012).

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

We ordinarily decline to review tactics employed by counsel, but even if we did so here, we would conclude that counsel’s decision to stipulate to the state’s evidence had strategic merit.

VI; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6; d 340, 357 (Minn. 2012).

(in camera review of medical records); (evidentiary rulings); 4 (Schwartz hearing).

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

(citing Paradee, d at 642).

VI; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

An attorney provides objectively reasonable representation by “exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

“Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.”

Mere speculation that a defendant is innocent is not sufficient to “overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.” -55 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

(citing U.S. Const. amend.

A criminal defendant has “a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense.” 10

Cox, d at 411; see also State v. Hokanson , 4–55 (Minn. 2012) (explaining that the State’s obligation is to exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt).

We apply “a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable,” and we do not generally “review matters of trial strategy or the particular tactics used by counsel.” .

v. Hokanson, ; U.S. Const. amend.

d 340, 357 (Minn. 2012).