Cited by

DECISION “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.”

see also Turnage 11 v. State, (discussing standard of review for objection based in foundation).

- 50 (Minn. 2014) (holding that reviewing courts assume that jurors follow a court’s instruction).

At trial, two officers testified they responded to a call for a “domestic with weapons.” “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court” and we will not reverse “absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 4 (Minn. 2014).

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court” and will not be reversed “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.” d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” “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 will not disturb the district court’s findings, including credibility findings, when there is “reasonable evid ence” to support the m. State v. Evans , (noting an appellate court reviews a postconviction court’s credibility determinations under the clearly erroneous standard’s “high threshold”).

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and [an appellate court] 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.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).

(stating that a district court’s decision to admit relationship evidence in a domestic-abuse prosecution is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

See State v. Ali , (“[W]e will not decide issues that were not raised before the district court, even when criminal defendants raise constitutional claims for the first time on appeal.”); –41 (Minn. 2020) (dismissing the defendant’s 10

“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.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court” and will not be reversed “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Evidentiary rulings are discretionary with 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 [an appellate court] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

On appeal, we are mindful that “[e]videntiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

6 “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.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin 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 wit hin 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 di strict court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

“Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin 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.”

Generally, “[e]videntiary rulings rest with in the sound discretion of the district court,” and on review, we will not reverse “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Reverse- Spreigl Evidence “Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

see Minn. Stat. § 609.15 (2016).

Evidentiary rulings are within the district court’s “sound discretion,” and we do not reverse evidentiary rulings “absent a clear abuse of discretion.” See State v. Ali

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

al testimony was not inconsistent with her prior out of court statement,” as “she was consistent as to where the assault occurred, who the perpetrator was, and the nature of the acts that occurred.” “Evidentiary rulings rest w ithin the sound discretion of the district court, and [an appellate court] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

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