Cited by

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

State v. Ali , (“Ev identiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).

State v. 25 Ali, –54 (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.”

The admission of evidence is “within the sound discretion of the district court,” and we “will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Lukes- Quinn asserts that we should apply the abuse-of-discretion standard because counsel made a hearsay objection, and evidentiary rulings typically “rest within the sound discretion of the district court.”

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

State v. Ali , d 235, 245 (Minn. 2014).

at 37 ( (quotation omitted)).

5 This court will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.2 State v. Ali

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

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

at 280–81 (emphasis added) (discussing State v. Ali (Ali I), n.19 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that Minn. Stat. § 609.106 “is constitutional with respect to almost all of those to whom it applies—adults”)).

“In cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences ar e rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”

“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.” 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 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.”

(providing that appellate courts reverse an evidentiary ruling only when there is an abuse of discretion).

’s admission of the hearsay evidence for plain error because appellant did not “put the prosecutor or [the district court] on notice of the particular argument that he now raises on appeal.” Typically, “[e]videntiary 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.”

(“Amending statutes is, and always has been, the Legislature’s job.”).

“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.”

4 “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).

State v. Ali , ; State v. Henderson

“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.”

6 district court’s evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion.4 d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).

“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.”

” State v. Ali , 9 (Minn. 2014).

Griller, d at 743; d 235, 247 -50 (Minn. 2014) (determining that the officer’s testimony regardi ng his identification of the defendant was admissible to provide context for the investigation).

See State v. Ali , , 268-69 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Olson , , 17-18 (Minn. 1982) ; *364 State v. Osterloh , , 580 (Minn. 1978).

And the Minnesota Supreme Court explained “that evidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.”

n.13 (Minn. 2014) (applying rule of multiple admissibility and concluding that testimony that “was actually inadmissible” under one theory of admissibility, “was properly admissible for the p urpose of providing context”).

(“In cases with multiple victims, consecutive sentences are rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.”).

“Jurors are presumed to follow limiting instructions with r espect to the proper use of evidence.” -50 (Minn. 2014).

Citing State v. Ali (Ali I), the State argued the court could impose discretionary consecutive sentences irrespective of Miller and Jackson.

“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.”

“[E]vidence is generally admissible to give jurors the context for an investigation.”