Cited by

a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’” -18 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

404(b), refers to “evidence of another crime, wrong, or act.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

(reasoning that a defendant’s “exclusive focus” at trial on the residual hearsay exception indicated that “a Confrontation Clause challenge was not apparent from the context of the objection”).

10 (reviewing for plain error when the defendant made a hearsay objection, but not a Confrontation Clause objection); (applying plain-error standard of review to forfeited evidentiary objection).

-18 (Minn. 2024) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’” -18 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

See State v. Rossberg, 6 -61 (Minn. 2020) (applying plain-error standard to unobjected-to failure of district court to comply with duty to instruct requirement of Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (2018)).

And appellate courts “review whether the rationale cited by the district court provides a proper basis upon which to admit the evidence.” –16 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

(applying plain-error review to a Confrontation Clause challenge raised for the first time on appeal).

1 Under the plain-error standard, a defendant must establish “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Rossberg, d at 618.

If a district court has erroneously admitted Spreigl evidence, an appellate court “must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” Ness, d at 691; -21 (Minn. 2009).

Whether Spreigl evidence is relevant and material depends on a “balancing process as to time, place, and modus operandi.” (quotation omitted).

- 18 (Minn. 2014) (noting that appellate courts generally will not consider a challenge to unobjected-to evidence, but that an appellate court may still “take notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights” (quotation omitted)).

(-18 (Minn. 2014)) (“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

-18 (Minn. 2014); In re Gonzalez

See State v. Rossberg , (noting that the 17 The district court instructed: Members of the jury, the State is ab out to introduce evidence of an occurrence on April 11th, 2020.

(noting that issues that are not raised in a petition for postconviction relief cannot be raised on appeal); –20 (Minn. 2014) (holding that challenges consisting of “factual assertions with no support in the record and conclusory declarations detached from any legal reasoning” are forfeited).

(reasoning that a defendant’s “exclusive focus” at trial on the residual hearsay exception indicated that “a Confrontation Clause challenge was not apparent from the context of the objection”).

-16 (Minn. 2014) (reasoning that review is limited to the rationale cited by the district court, and not the one supplied by the state).

State v. Rossberg , (quotation omitted).

“One of the requirements for admitting Spreigl evidence is that the district court must identify the pr ecise disputed fact to which the Spreigl evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).

a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’ ” –18 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis added) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

- 18 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis added).

was an accomplice as a matter of law was “ (1) error, (2) that was plai n, and (3) that affected [his] substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).

We will affirm the district court unless Warren meets his burden to “show that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence and that the erroneous admission was prejudicial.” State v. Rossberg , d 609, 615 (Minn. 2014) .

We will affirm the ruling unless Torres meets his burden to “show that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence and that the erroneous admission was prejudicial.” State v. Rossberg

–16 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

(addressing requirements for admission of other-bad-acts evidence, including that it must address a specific fact that is actually disputed).

State v. Rossberg , , 617-18 (Minn. 2014).

See State v. Rossberg , , 615 (Minn. 2014).