Cited by

(“But the ultimate question in a severance claim .

When reviewing a constitutional challenge to a statute, we presume that the statute is constitutional, and we exercise our power to declare statutes unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).

.” (holding, among other things, that the defendant waived his vicinage right when he moved to change venue before trial).

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision regarding whether to sever charges or offenses de novo.”

The state argues that venue is not an element of every criminal offense, claiming convictions with insufficient venue evidence should not be reversed because the 4 constitution “guarantees the defendant only a jury from a particular county or district.” (reviewing a constitutional challenge to appellant’s jury trial).

(“Article I, Section 6, is merely an affirmation of the common -law right to a jury from the vicinage where the crime was committed.” (footnote omitted) ).

“[J]oinder is not prejudicial if evidence of each offense would have been admissible Spreigl evidence in the trial of the other.” (quotation omitted).

Simply put: “[a]rticle I, [s]ection 6, does not define or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of this state over criminal offenses.” 4 (quotation omitted).

(stating that “[a] district court must sever offenses or charges prior to trial when the offenses or charges are not related or the court determines severance is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence of each off ense or charge” (quotations omitted)).

(“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s decision r egarding whether to sever charges or offenses de novo.”).

(addressing proper standard of review and holding “that de novo review is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court ’s denial of a motion for severance of offens es under Minn. R. Crim.

And when we review constitutional challenges to statutes, we presume that the statutes are constitutional and exercise our power to declare statutes unconstitutional “with extreme -caution and only when ¡absolutely necessary.” (quotation omitted).

We note that “Minnesota statutes are presumed constitutional.”