Cited by

“d 615, 627 (Minn. 2015), [the Minnesota Supreme Court] explicitly extended that adoption to the amended version of Minn. Stat. § 634.20.” Zinski, d at 274 n.4.

dice has affected a judge’s performance of their duties in violation of Rule 2.3(A), CJC, we take instruction from decisions assessing bias in other contexts, including decisions assessing whether alleged bias by the judge requires reversal of a criminal conviction, see, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); whether a juror expressed actual bias, see, and whether recusal or removal of a judge is appropriate.

rt’s determination of juror impartiality is especially deferential” because “a distri ct court is best positioned to judge a juror’s demeanor, as opposed to an appellate court’s review of a cold record.” Ulrich, d at 6-7 (quotation omitted).3 “The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted Minnesota Statutes section 634.20 as a rule of evidence to allow for “the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse.” -61 (Minn. 2004)

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to seat a juror for abuse of discretion.”

Since the amendment, the supreme court has noted that “evidence of domestic conduct by the accused against family or household members other than the victim may be admitted pursuant to [section] 634.20.”

A juror is rehabilitated “if he or she states unequivocally that he or she will follow the district court’s instructions and will set aside any preconceived notions and fairly evaluate the evidence.” d 615, 623 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

If, however, we conclude that the district court abused 8 its discretion in denying a motion to remove a juror for cause and the biased juror “actually sits in judgment of the defendant, any conviction must be reversed.”

Instead, “[t]o prove actual bias, the challenging party must show that the [fact -finder] exhibited strong and deep impressions that would prevent [it] from lay[ing] aside [its] impression or opinion and render[ing] a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” d 615, 623 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

The bias of even a single juror violates a defendant’s constitutional rights because “the impartiality of the adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that Minn. R. Civ.

Instead, “[t]o prove actual bias, the challenging party must show that the [fact -finder] exhibited strong and deep impressions that would prevent [it] from lay[ing] aside [its] impression or opinion and render[ing] a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” (fourth and sixth alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).

Such relationship evidence is generally admissible “unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; d 153, 156 n.1 (Minn. 2004); (adopting the statute as a rule of evidence).

inst the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members” to be admitted “unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2020); (adopting statute as a rule of evidence).

5 jury, or considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.; (adopting the statute as a rule of evidence).

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2020); -27 (Minn. 2015); -21 (Minn. App. 2008), ajf'd, d 883 (Minn. 2009).

4 The supreme court later clarified “that ev idence of domestic co nduct by the accused against family or household members other than the victim may be admitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20.” State v. Fraga , (emphasis added).

404(b)(1) prov ides that evidence of a defendant’s prior “crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” But “evidence of domestic conduct by the accused against family or household members other than the victim ma y be admitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20.”

“[E]vidence of domestic conduct by the ac cused against family or household members other than the victim may be admitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 634.20, which, as a matter of comity, we adopt as a rule of evidence.”

“The bias of a single juror violates the defendant’s right to a fair trial, 3 because the impartiality of the adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system.” State v. Fraga , (quotation omitted).

“The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to an impartial j ury.”

(quotation and citation omitted).

d 615, 625-26 (Minn. 2015).

see also State v. Fraga , -27 (Minn. 2015) (recognizing that McCoy adopted section 634.20 as rule of evidence that includes evidence of domestic conduct by the accused against family or household members other than the victim).

18, 1987); (“Fraga’s third issue, that the district cour t erred in denying his motion for a change of venue, is now moot because the conviction is reversed.”).

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014); see also State v. Fraga , -27 (Minn. 2015)

is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of 14

“The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury.”

(quoting State v. Fraga , , 623 (Minn. 2015) )).

“To prove actual bias, the challenging party must show that the juror exhibited strong and deep impressions that would prevent her fr om laying aside her impression or opinion and rendering a verdict based on the evid ence presented in court.” (quotations omitted).

In State v. Fraga , , 627 (Minn. 2015), we explicitly extended that adoption to the amended version of Minn. Stat. § 634.20 .