Cited by

(applying abuse-of- discretion standard to claim that evidentiary ruling deprived appellant of his right to present a complete defense); (applying abuse- of-discretion standard to claim that evidentiary ruling limiting cross-examination violated appel

“[Appellate courts] review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for [an] abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Zumberge

(victim said, “I’m 15 going to kill that [woman]”); (victim tried to punch defendant); –24 (Minn. 2006) (victim kicked and shot defendant); (victim hit defen

The abuse-of-discretion standard applies even if a “defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” d 688, 694 (Minn. 2017).

The abuse -of-discretion standard applies even if a “defendant claims that th e exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

We apply t he abuse -of-discretion standard to the district court’s evidentiary rulings even when “the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

“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 right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

Beginning in 1970 and most recently in 2017 , we have cited the particular-person exclusion in at least 13 cases when rejecting defendants’ arguments that they were entitled to jury instructions on depraved-mind murder.

We apply discretionary review “even when, as here, the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

A viable self-defense claim has four elements: “(1) the absence of aggression or provocation by the defendant, (2) the defendant’s actual and honest belief that he or another was in imminent danger of death or 6 great bodily harm, (3) the existenc e of reasonable grounds for the belief, and (4) the absence of a reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger.” State v. Zumberge

struct 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

This court will review a district court’s evidentiary rulings “for abuse of discretion, even when, as here , the defendant claims that exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity 10 to present a complete defens e.”

We have also recognized that “every lesser d egree of murder is an included offense.” State v. Zumberge

d 688, 697 (Minn. 2017) (“A defendant is prejudiced when the [fact -finder] may have convicted the defendant of only the lesser offense had the lesser -included-offense instruction been given.”).

-07 (Minn. 1997).9 But even if the district court abuses its discretion, “we reverse only if the exclusion of eviden ce was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

see also Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.

This court reviews “a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the [appellant] claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a comp lete defense.” State v. Zumberge

at 595, 597, and determine whether “(1) the lesser offense is included in the charged offense, (2) the evidence provides a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the offense charged, and (3) the evidence provides a rational basis for convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense,”

This standard of review applies even when “the defendant claims that the exclusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

“When self-defense is asserted, evidence of a specific act is admissible only to show that a defendant reasonably feared great bod ily harm, provided that the defendant proves that he knew of the specific act at the time of the alleged offense,” and “where commonsense indicates that these acts could legitimately affect a defendant’s apprehensions,” State v. Matthews, 301 Minn. 133, 134

This court reviews “a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, even when, as here, the defendant claims that the ex clusion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opport unity to present a complete defense.”

at 598 (emphasis added) ; see also State v. Zumberge

6 deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

This court “review[s] the denial of a re quested lesser-included-offense instruction for an abuse of discretion.”

see also Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd.

This standa rd of review applies even when “the defendant claims that the excl usion of evidence deprived him of his constitutional right to a meaningful opportu nity to present a complete defense.”