Cited by

(concluding there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of evidence that a defendant sexually abused a child affected the jury’s verdict).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant “may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant “may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]n rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the defendant] a fair trial,” the defendant “may be entitled to a new trial.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

There are “rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

14 “An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant “may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“When considering a claim of cumulative error, we look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case” and “are more inclined to order a new trial for cumulative error in a very close factual case.”

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

(“[E]rrors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.”) ( ).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the 27 appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

The cumulative effect of trial errors may warrant a new trial in “‘rare cases’ where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.” 14 (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

In “rare cases,” an appellant may be entitled to a new trial if “the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

To conduct this analysis, appellate courts “look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case.”

In a closing argument, the state may present “all legitimate arguments on the evidence and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (quotation omitted).

An evidentiary error will not require reversal for a new trial unless the defendant establishes ‘a reasonable possibility that the error substantially affected the verdict.’ ” d 362, 365 (Minn. 2018) ().

Williams invokes the well-established rule that, “[i]n closing argument, a prosecutor must ‘avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.’” ().

taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotation omitted).

“[An] appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the ‘errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial.’” ().

(stating that a defendant may be entitled to a new trial “in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [the] appellant a fair trial” (quotation omitted)); see also Williams, 2024 WL 1044815, at *1 (reversing and remanding where the cumulative effect of eviden

“[An] appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the ‘errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying [th e] appellant a fair trial.’” ().

To determine whether the admission of relationship evidence substantially influenced the jury’s decision, we “consider [1] whether the district court provided the jury a cautionary instruction, [2] whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument, and [3] whether the evidence of guilt was strong.”

“A party ‘opens the door’ when it introduces evidence that creates a right in the opposing party to respond with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible.”

“An appellant may be entitled to a new trial in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial.” (quotations omitted).

“A party ‘opens the door’ when it introduces evidence that creates a right in the opposing party to respond with evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible.”

d 263, 278 (Minn. 2017) (stating a defendant may be entitled to a new trial “in rare cases where the errors, when taken cumulatively, have the effect of denying the appellant a fair trial” (quotation omitted) (emphasis added)).