Cited by

Regarding the risk of unfair prejudice, “the term prejudice in Rule 403 does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” (quotation omitted).

Unfair prejudice does not mean “damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.” ( quotation omitted).

“It is generally 7 misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.” (quotation omitted).

But unfair prejudice does not mean “damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.” 3 In McCoy, the Minnesota Supreme Court “expressly adopt[ed] Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as a rule of evidence for the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse.” d at 161.

But unfair prejudice does not mean “damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.” (quotation omitted).

“When considering whether an error affected a defendant’s substantial rights, we consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotations omitted).

eading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” As used in the rule, the word “prejudice” means an “unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means,” and not “damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence.” (quotation omitted).

And “[i]t is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.” (quotation omitted).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

Additionally, “when evidence is admissible under the Minnesota Rules 20 of Evidence, a prosecutor does not commit misconduct by introducing the evidence at trial.”

only implicates a defendant’s due process rights when the identification of the defendant by the witness was arranged by law enforcement.’” State v. Jones , 15 (); see also Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228, 23 3 (2012) (holding that due process is not implicated by the admission of identification evidence when “no improper law enforcement activity is involved” in the identification procedure).

known to the court”) ; n.2 (Minn. 2014) (“[T]o properly preserve a claim that evidence should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must timely object and state the specific ground of objection.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted)); (concluding that the ap

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

because it was unhelpful.” 7 “[T]o properly preserve a claim that evidence should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must ‘timely object[]’ and ‘state[] the specific ground of objection.’” n.2 (Minn. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence.”

see Peltier, d at 803 (holding that there was no reasonable likelihood that the allegedly improper evidence significantly affected the verdict, in part because the state did not mention the contested evidence in its closing argument).

“It is generally misconduct for a prosecutor to ‘knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury’s attention.’” ().

n.2 (Minn. 2014) (observing that “to properly preserve a claim that evidence should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must ‘timely object[]’ and ‘state[] the specific ground of objection.’ ” (citing Minn. R. Evid.

at 866; - 99 (Minn. 2014) (“A criminal defendant has the constitutional due process right to call and examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by the rules of evidence.”).

To show plain error, Noor must demonstrate “(1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”

“[T]he term ‘prejudice’ in [r]ule 403 does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate 11 probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” (quotation omitted).

5 Evidence is unfairly prejudicial under rule 403 when there is an “unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” (quotation omitted).

” n.5 (Minn. 2023) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.

n.2 (Minn. 2014) (“But to properly preserve a claim that evidence should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must timely object and state the specific ground of objection.” (quotations omitted)); see also State v. Vasquez , (“A defendant ’s objection

This right, however, “is subject to rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure fairness and reliability in the determination of guilt.” 5 ; (“A criminal defendant has the constitutional due process right to call and examine witnesses, including expert witnesses, subject to the limitations imposed by 5 The application of an evidentiary rule may violate the right to present a complete defense if “the rule infringes upon a weighty in

“Rulings concerning the admission of expert testimony generally rest within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -99 (Minn. 2014).

[appellate courts ] consider the strength of the evidence against the defen dant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” State v. Mosley , (quotation omitted).

Even in cases where there was such an error, an appellate court “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

“[W]e consider the strength of the evidence against the defendant, the pervasiveness of the improper suggestions, and whether the defendant had an opportunity to (or made efforts to) rebut the improper suggestions.” (quotations omitted).

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

Relevant evidence “logically tends to prove or disprove a 6 material fact in issue.”

If the state fails to meet its burden, we “may correct the error only if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (quotation omitted) (alteration in original).

only implicates a defendant’s due process rights when the identification of the defendant by the witness was arranged by law enforcement.” (citing Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228, 248 (2012) ).

State v. Mosley , State v. Penkaty

This prong is met when the error “violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”