Cited by

“On appeal, we review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected records for an abuse of discretion.”

As to the first step of the Strickland analysis, “[t]he objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Hokanson , (quotation omitted).

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

When a criminal defendant requests protected records “the district court may screen the confidential reco rds in camera to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense ag ainst the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.” ().

“District courts have discretion in ruling on evidentiary matters, and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discret ion.” State v. Hokanson

State v. Hokanson , 4 (Minn. 2012) (“[W]e explained that although the State may prove a pattern beyond a reasonable doubt ‘even if the State does not prove every claimed predicate act of the pattern beyond a reasonable doubt,’ at least two instances must be proven beyond a re asonable doubt to constitute a pattern.” (footnote omi

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

d 340, 349 (Minn. 2012).

See State v. Hokanson , n.1 (Minn. 2012) (stating that a “witness’s testimony is direct evidence when it is based on the witness’s own knowledge of the facts”).

State v. Hokanson , , 357 (Minn. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

See Hayes , d at 553 (including in circumstances proved medical testimony that child victim's "cranial trauma was more severe than could be explained by a mere accidental household fall"); State v. Hokanson , , 355 (Minn. 2012) (including in circumstances proved that child victim "did not have any blood disorder or other medical problem that would have caused him to bruise easily"); State v. Rhodes , , 841 (Minn. 2003) (noting that medical testimony about the cause of a victim's injuries "suppor

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

“On appeal, we review the limits placed by the district court on the release and use of protected record s for an abuse of discretion.”

A district court has “considerable latitude ” in the selection of language for jury instructions, and “we will not reverse where jury instructions overall fairly a nd correctly state the applicable law.”

1 Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” State v. Hokanson , n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

Circumstantial evidence is “evidence from which the factfinder can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

“O n appeal, we review the limits placed by 7 the district court on the rele ase and use of protected record s for an abuse of discretion.”

State v. Hokanson , , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 20 63-64 (1984) (quotation omitted); State v. Hokanson

We have defined circumstantial evidence as “evidence from which the factfin-der can infer whether the facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” , 354 n.3 (Minn. 2012) (quoting 1 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Whartons Criminal Evidence § 1:8 (15th ed. 1997)), In contrast, direct evidence is “[e]vidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”

“Criminal defendants have a right to prepare and present a complete defense.”

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

testified that appellant was her “cousin” or “blood cousin.” “[A] witness’s testimony is direct evidence when it is based on the witness’s own knowledge of the facts.” n.1 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

When a defendant requests private records that are protected by legislation, such as the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, the district court may conduct an in 8 camera review in order “to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense against the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.”