Cited by

The District Court’s Decision Not To Recuse A judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (quoting Minn. R. Jud.

And evidence of the third person’s “motive alone does not have the inherent tendency to connect [them] to the commission of the crime.” (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., Atkinson, d at 590 (–69 (Minn. 1999)); –09 (Minn. 2016); Woodard, d at 142.

d within its discretion by excluding the expert testimony on the basis that its limited probative value was “substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and unfair prejudice.” Even assuming that the district court’s exclusion of the therapist’s testimony amounted to an abuse of discretion, we conclude that any “error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

committed the crime for which the defendant was charged,” State v. Woodard , ().

“A judge is disqualified for a lack of impartiality under Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner, from the perspective of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” d 302, 314 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

The exclusion of evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when, “assuming the potential damage of the excluded evidence were fully realized, a reasonable jury ‘would have reached the same verdict.’ ” ().

“Impartiality” is the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues.” Terminology, Minn. Code Jud .

Judges are presumed to be “neutral and objective.”

(noting that “fresh-appearing bruises” and abrasions on the victim’s thighs were “inconsistent with consensual sexual activity”).

See Pratt, d at 878; (Lillehaug, J., dissenting).

“A judge is disqualified for a lack of impartiality under Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner , from the perspective of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” Troxel v. State , (emphasis added) (quotations omitted).

n.3 (Minn. 2016) (“[F]orfeiture .

A district court must instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense when “(1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense; (2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the charged offense; and (3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense.” Troxel v. State, 8 accord State v. Zumberge

“Impartiality means the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues.” Troxel v. State , (quotation omitted).

A defendant’s constitutional right to a fair opportunity to defend against criminal charges “includes the right to present evidence that a third party (an ‘alternative perpetrator’) committed the crime for which the defendant was charged.”

Conduct] Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner, from the perspect ive of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” (quotations omitted).

19 Slutzker v. Johnson , 393 F.3d 373 (3rd Cir. 2004), which concerns the requirements for prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and a trio of cases concerning alternative- perpetrator evidence:

“A judge is disqualified for a lack of impartiality under Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner, from the perspective of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” (quotations omitted).

“A judge is disqualified for a lack of impartiality under Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner, from the perspective of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” d 302, 314 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).

A judge is presumed to be impar tial and approach the case with a “neutral and objective disposition.” Troxel v. State , (quotation omitted).

“A defendant is prejudiced when the jury may have convicted the defendant of only the lesser offense had the lesser -included-offense instruction be en given.” Zumberge, d at 697 (quoting Troxel v. State , ).

“A conviction will stand despite erroneously excluded evidence when the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Troxel v. State , , 313 n.3 (Minn. 2016).

3-14 (Minn. 2016) (denying judicial -bias claim on the merits notwithstanding a special -term panel denying writ of prohibition) .

It is presumed that a judge can “approach every aspect of each case with a neutral and objective disposition.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant is prejudiced when the jury may have convicted the defendant of only the lesser offense had the lesser-included-offense instruction been given.”