Cited by

“We review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”

See, -40 (Minn. 2016) (recognizing that a district court’s limiting instruction can reduce the probability that jurors will use Spreigl evidence for an improper purpose).

Valentine, d at 638; -41 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing admission of expert testimony).

This court reviews evidentiary rulings, “including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”

This court reviews evidentiary rulings, “including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”

Generally, expert testimony about gangs is admissible when a defendant is charged with committing an offense for the benefit of a gang and the expert testimony will add “precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experienc e.” -41 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

rmine if there is a reasonable possibility that inadmissible evidence of a prior conviction significantly affected a verdict, we consider three factors, including whether (1) “the district court instructed the jury to limit the use of the other 17 crime evidence,” (2) “the [s]tate dwelled on the evidence in closing argument,” and (3) “the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.” (quotation omitted).

“We review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”

(“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional righ

d 834, 840-41 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing admission of expert testimony); (reviewing the admission of evidence as a prior consistent statement under rule 801).

“Although district courts may favor [model] jury instructions, their use is not required.”

(declining to analyze whether other-acts evidence was admissible where the defendant had not demonstrated that the admission was harmful).

It is not error for the district court to modify a model jury instruction “to fit the contentions of the parties.” –12 (Minn. 2006); (“Although district courts may favor pattern jury instructions, their use is not required.”).

An appellate court reviews “evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.” d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).

here is a reasonable possibility that inadmissible evidence of a prior conviction significantly affected a verdict, it is appropriate to consider three factors: 16 “whether the district court instructed the jury to limit the use of the other crime evidence,” “whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument ,” and “whether the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.” (quotation omitted).

“Although district courts may favor pattern jury instructions, their use is not required.”

In assessing this possibility, we consider whether the district court issued a cautionary instruction to the jury, which we presume the jury followed, whether the state “dwelled on the evidence in closing argument,” and “whether the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.”

d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).

d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016).

This includes evidentiary rulings “related to the admissibility of expert testimony.” State v. Thao

When a defendant has been charged with committing a crime for the benefit of a gang, the s tate “may offer expert testimony on gangs,” as long as “the testimony adds precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experience.” –41 (Minn. 2016).

And the Minnesota Supreme Court reiterated this point in State v. Thao , (M inn.

Nevertheless, were we to ex amine the objection, “[w]e review evidentiary rulings, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion.”

This includes evidentiary rulings “related to the admissibility of expert testimony.”

State v. Thao , , 839 (Minn. 2016) ("When determining whether the admission of prior-bad-acts evidence is harmful, we have considered ...

“District courts are afforded broad discretion and considerable latitude in choosing the language of jury instruct ions.” State v. Thao , (qu otation omitted).

d 834, 839 (Minn. 2016) (evaluating the harmlessness of evidence admitted under Minn. R. Evid.