Cited by

(applying plain-error review i n the context of a challenge to the lack of a specific unanimity instruction).

604-08 (Minn. 2017) ; In re Dakota County , , 911-13 (Minn. 2015) ; State v. Wenthe , , 303 (Minn. 2015) ; Occhino , d at 359-61 ; In re Robledo , , 69 (Minn. App. 2000).

See State v. Wenthe , , 302 (Minn. 2015) ("[W]e have generally declined to imply mens rea when the statute does not otherwise result in strict liability.").

d 293, 302 (Minn. 2015) (“[W]e have generally declined to imply mens rea when the statute does not otherwise result in strict liability.”).

See State v. Wenthe , , 303 (Minn. 2015) (citing Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue , , 259 (Minn. 1992) ) (considering a statute's structure as part of statutory interpretation).

“An error affects a defendant’s substantial 5 rights if the error was prejudicial and affected the outco me of the case.” (quotation omitted).

“A violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights necessitates a new trial unless the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wenthe , (quotation omitted).

First, the court relied on State v. Wenthe , to conclude that the statutes did not unconstitutionally impose strict liability.

(articulating the principle that it is not the function of a reviewing court to “supply that which the legisl ature purposely omits or ina dvertently overlooks”).

(“[C]ourts cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” (quoting Wallace v. Comm’r of Taxation, )).

We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, “even when a constitutional violation is alleged.”

d 293, 306 (Minn. 2015 ).

Appellant “bears the heavy burden of proving prejudice.” State v. Wenthe , (quotation omitted).

“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, even when a constitutional violation is alleged.”

299 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted) , cert.

“The de fendant bears the heavy burden of proving prejudice.” State v. Wenthe , (quotation omitted), cert.

Generally, “[i]n a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct, ‘evidence of the victim's previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor shall any reference to such co nduct be made in the presence of the jury.’ ” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.347, subd.

“Denial of a requested jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” cert.

“In other words, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the giving of the instruction in question would have had a significant effect on the verdict of the jury.” (quotation omitted).

d 293, 301 n.2, 303 (Minn. 2015) (holding that the clergy sexual conduct statute requires general intent and does not impose strict liability because the act of sexual penetration must be intentional).

(applying plain-error test where defendant did not request a specific unanimity instruction).

alid and reliable and were the test 4 results accurately evaluated?” became “Was the testing method used valid and reliable and, for test results of 0.08 or less, were the test results accurately evaluated?” But a court’s reading of a statute may not “supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” (quotation omitted).

“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, even when a constitutional violation is alleged.”