Cited by

This court reviews the district court’s evidentiary rulings for a “clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Bustos

A district court abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Bustos , (quotation omitted) .

“Under an abuse -of- discretion standard, [an appellate court] may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for a “clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Bustos

(considering unobjected-to errors in a cumulative -error analysis); State v. Mayhorn , (considering objected-to evidentiary errors and unobjected- to prosecutorial misconduct in a cumulative-error analysis).

However, even under this standard, appellate courts may reverse a district cour t’s D-2 ruling when that ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law.” ().

A district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is “based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

d 655, 663 (Minn. 2015).

11 “Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that the error[] had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.’” ().

Kellermann contends that his trial attorney’s an opinion that Kellermann contends is inapplicable because it concerns a different offense, d omestic- 8 abuse murder.

An error is clear and obvious if it “violates or contradicts case law, a rule , or an applicable standard of conduct.” 0-61 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

If the defendant establishes these three requirements, we then consider whether “the error must be addressed to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” (citing Griller, d at 742 ).

“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, [appellate courts] may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (Minn. 2015).

(declining to address additional arguments where resolution of one issue is dispositive of the case).

The supreme court declined to address the issue, stating: “Because we affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder, we need not consider appellant’s arguments regarding the burglary verdict.” Id.; (“Because we reverse the first- degree murder conviction, it is also necessary to address Bustos’s challenge to the guilty verdict in connection with the second-degree murder charge.” (emphasis added)).

The defendant “must establish that there was an error, the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial rights.”

(concluding it was plain error to restrict defense counsel’s closing argument, but noting it was unnecessary to address whether the error affected substantial rights because the combined effect of this error and another error required a new trial).

See, (“[W]hen the State alleges prior acts in excess of what is necessary to prove a past pattern, not all of the prior acts need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt .

6 -63 (applying plain-error analysis to a challenge to a definition contained in jury instructions when the definition was not objected to at trial).

“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, [appellate courts] may reverse the district court when the district court’s ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).