Cited by

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that “cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”); (noting that we presume jurors follow the district court’s instructions).

Further, we have repeatedly concluded that “[t]he likelihood of unfair prejudice from relationship evidence may be lessened by making a cautionary instruction to the jury.” Boswell, d at 653 (); -42 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that “cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”).

Relationship evidence is admissible “unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20

Rather, the “critical determinative factor” for a statement contained in a scientific report is “whether a statement was prepared for litigation.” (quoting Caulfield, d at 309).

Thus, the evidence was “presumptively admissible.”

State v. Andersen , -42 (Minn. App. 2017).

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that “the district court’s cautionary instructions 11 lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”); (stating that a district court’s li

(concluding no plain error where the relationship evidence provided context to a challenge to the witness’ credibility); (observing that “the district court’s cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”).

See, (stating that the numerous cautionary instructions provided by the district court “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence”); -42 (Minn. App. 2017) (observing that the district court’s cautionary instructions “lessened any probability that the jury would rely improperly on relationship evidence”).

8 and the times that [the defendant] attempted to manipulate, control, and restrain [the victim].”

In State v. Andersen, we determined that evidence of the defendant’s “verbal[] and physical[] abuse[]” of the victim “earlier in their relationship” had “obvious probative value” because it “informed the jury of the nature of their relationship, the times that [the victim] felt afraid of [the defendant], and the times that [the defendant] attempted to manipulate, control, and restrain her.” d 635, 641 (Minn. 2006) (determining that evidence that the defendant twice violated an order for protecti

As a result, that evidence “is relevant to ‘illuminate the history of the relationship’ so as to put the charged crime in context.” (quoting McCoy, d at 159).

28, 2009); see also State v. Andersen , -42 (Minn. App. 2017) (affirming the admission of not only past physic al abuse, but also verbal abuse, because it “tend[ed] to illuminate the volatility of the relationship and put the [relevant] incident in the context of the couple’s interaction with each other”).

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) ( affinning admission of evidence of prior abusive behavior that highlighted appellant's attempts to manipulate, control, and restrain victim); (affinning admission of evidence of prior abusive conduct that provided context for victim's

d 438, 441 (Minn. App. 2017).

“We review the district court’s decision to admit relationship evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

“We review the district court’s decision to admit relationship evidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Andersen

See, -41 (Minn. App. 2017) ( upholding admission of victim’s testimony about strangulation assault the day following the offense as relationship evidence) ; State v. Lindsay , d 752, 756 (Minn. App. 2008) (upholding admission of evidence of a defendant’s conduct more than a month after the charged offens

see, e.g. , Caulfield, d at 307, 309 (holding that a lab report “functioned a s the equivalent of 6 testimony” because it was offered to prove a substance was cocaine).

27, 2018); d 438, 440 (Minn. App. 2017); Barnslater, d at 649.

-42 (Minn. App. 2017) (noting that “the district court’s cautionary instructions lessened any probability that the jury would rely impr operly on relationship evidence”).

State v. Andersen , , 442 (Minn. App. 2017).

“[T]o become inadmissi ble, the presumptively admissible relationship evidence must be more than merely potentially prejudicial, and it must be more than merely potentially unfairly prejudicial.” State v. Andersen , (permitting the use of evidence of a defendant’s other bad acts for limited purposes).

State v. Andersen , (M inn.