Cited by

when the concession is reasonably supported by the record”); n.9 (Minn. 2017) (recognizing the criminal defendant’s concession on appeal).

When deciding whether to permit a party to reopen its case-in-chief, a district court considers three factors, also known as the Caine factors: “(1) when the request was made; (2) whether the evidence was material, not cumulative, and concerned a controlling issue; and (3) whether there was an improper purpose for failing to produce the evidence earlier.” 619 (Minn. 2017) () (setting forth the factors and referring to them as the Caine factors).

See State v. Thomas , (quotation omitted) (stating standard in context of a district court decision).

.”); (noting that adopting a rigid evidentiary rule would “infringe on the district court’s discretion to manage criminal trials”).

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

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

See State v. Thomas , , 616 (Minn. 2017) ("[W]e are not permitted to add words or phrases to the text of an unambiguous rule."