Cited by

State v. Jonas, ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2026 WL 1053209, at *4 (Minn. App. Apr.

5 “Though [district] courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (quotation omitted).

we addressed the question of admissibility of hearsay evidence under Rule 804(b)(3), which provides that hearsay statements are admissible if the declarant’s statement was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tende

recantation.” Dobbins v. State , d 148, 155 (Minn. 2013).

Appointment of advisory counsel under this rule “is permissive, not mandatory.”

I. We have previously said that trial courts generally have “broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand.” (citing Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP

D E C I S I O N I. Scope of the Remand “A [district] court’s duty on remand is to execute the mandate of the remanding court strictly according to its terms.” see also Dobbins v. State , (“[District] courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, [but] they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (quotations omitted)).

Evidentiary rulings “rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Chomnarith , (stating that the district court “did not abuse its discretion when it refused to expand the scope of th e evidentiary hearing on remand”).

.” Dobbins v. State , n.1 (Minn. 2013) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

The third prong is relevant but is not an absolute condition precedent to granting relief.” (quotation and citation omitted).

“Though trial courts generally have broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The first two prongs of the Larrison test are compulsory.” d 148, 151 (Minn. 2013).

“We review a postconviction court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

“[T]he relevance of each of the six factors will vary depending on the facts of each case.” d 148, 153 (Minn. 2013), cert.

“A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused” is only admissible under this exception if “corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” Id.; (discussing Minn. R. Evid.