Cited by

But application of rule 403 is “unquestionably constitutional.” (quotation omitted).

The right “yields to the application of an evidentiary rule unless the rule 15 ‘infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused and [is] arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve.’ ” –42 (Minn. 2013) (alterations in original) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324–25 (2006)); see also Richards, d at 195 (explaining that in exercising the right to present a defense, a defendant must still “ ‘comply with established rules of procedure and eviden

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution both contain double-jeopardy clauses that “protect a criminal defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal on the merits.” (quotation omitted).

evidentiary rule[s].” -42 (Minn. 2013).

DECISION Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “protect a criminal defendant’s right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Pass , (citing U.S. Const. amend.

are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote.” -42 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-26 (2006)).

has the constitutional due process right to call and examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by 5 The application of an evidentiary rule may violate the right to present a complete defense if “the rule infringes upon a weighty interest of the accused and is arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes the rule is designed to serve.” d 836, 841-42 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

11 Under the Due Process Clause, the United States and Minnesota Constitutions protect a defendant’s right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” see also U.S. Const. amend.

403; 42 (Minn. 2013) ( noting that “evidentiary rules designed to permit the exclusion of unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading evidence are unquestionably constitutional” (quotation omitted)).

ar e disproportionate to the ends that they asserted to promote.’” -42 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-25, 32 6, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 1732 (2006)).

But “a defendant’s due process right to present a complete defense yields to the application of an evidentiary rule unless the rule ‘infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused and [is] 4 arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve.’” –42 (Minn. 20 13) (alteration in original) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324–25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006)).

-42 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006)) (alterations omitted).

12(b), requires the court to “vacate the conviction and enter a judgment of acquittal.” And “[ojnce an acquittal occurs, the prosecution is over.”

are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote.’” -42 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319, 324 -26, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731-32 (2006)) (alterations in original).

the supreme court stated that “a defendan t’s due process right to present a complete defense yields to the application of an evidentiary rule unless the rule ‘infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused and [is] arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve,’”

Like all criminal defendants, Loving had a constitutional “right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

Furthermore, a district court violates a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense only if the district court excludes evidence based on an evidentiary rule that “infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused and [is] arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve.” -42 (Minn. 2013) (alterations in original) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006)).

is over ” (involving double jeopardy issue); (quotations omitted) (stating that decision on merits in favor of criminal defendant of “some or all of the factual elements of the offenses charged” constitutes acquittal on merits).

-42 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006)) (alterations omitted).

(quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324-25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006)) (alterations omitted).

However, a defendant’s due process right to present a complete defense yields to the application of an evidentiary rule unless the rule “infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused and [is] arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes [the rule is] designed to serve.” –42 (Minn. 2013) (citations omitted) (quoting Holmes v. S. Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324–25, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006) (quotation omitted)).

(discussing a criminal defendant’s due-process right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense).