Cited by

the supreme court held that the Minnesota Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings, and subsequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committees on Evidence and Criminal Procedure amended Minn. R. Evid.

This amendment followed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s in which the supreme court “held that the Rules of Evidence apply to criminal restitution hearings.” Id.

n.5 (Minn. 2017) (reasoning that, because statutory right to restitution hearing did not exist when rule of evidence was promulgated, it was “unlikely that the drafters” of the rule “intended” a term within the rule to “encompass the then-nonexistent” hearing).

The doctrine of stare decisis “directs us to adhere to our former decisions in order to promote the stability of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.” n.7 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, and we may “look outside Minnesota when our own jurisprudence is undefined.” n.4 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

(“[T]he Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings.”).

“[I]f the defendant challenges the restitution 4 amount sought, the statute requires the court to conduct a restitution hearing.” n.8 (Minn. 2017).

n.4 (Minn. 2017) (“We look outside Minnesota ‘when our own jurisprudence is undefined.’ ” (citation omitted)).

1101(c); , 648 (Minn. 2017).

d 838 (Minn. App. 2016), rev’d

n.8 (Minn. 2017) (recognizing that “if the defendant challenges the restitution amount sought, the statute requires the court to conduct a restitution hearing, and the Rules of Evidence apply to that hearing even if it is held during the same court appearance in which the imposition of a sentence length and ot

.”); State v. Willis , (holding that the rules of evidence apply in restitution proceedings).

State v. Willis , , 648 n.8 (Minn. 2017) (citing Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.

See State v. Willis , rev’d, d 642 (Minn. 2017).