Cited by

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

(“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a comple

Bhujel also contends that the Spreigl evidence “suggested that he had a general propensity for groping female co- workers’ breasts and it attacked his character.” But the district court expressly instructed the jury not to use the evidence to determine that Bhujel 12 acted in conformity with a character trait, and “[j]urors are presumed to follow limiting instructions.” -50 (Minn. 2014).

And as the state notes, “evidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.” State v. Ali , (stating evidence was properly admitted because it explained inception of the police investigation, “was inextricably intertwined with the state’s theory of the case,” and district court cautioned state to offer evidence only to extent necessary

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court,” and appellate courts “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

A decision to admit evidence is “within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Indeed, evidence of reports made to police are “generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.” see Griller, d at 743 (holding no abuse of discretion in admitting letter sent to police department and content of police interviews with neighbors because the testimony “provided the jury with the context necessary to explain how the investigation against Griller began and why the poli

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

8 Moreover, we have repeatedly concluded in nonbinding, 8 in which the district court allowed police officers to testify about identifying the defendant in a security-camera video during the course of their investigation but did not allow them to testify about their current opinion that the defendant was depicted in the video.

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”

9 “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

(noting that “evidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation”).

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”