Cited by

But the right to present a complete defense “is not absolute.”

Ordinarily, we afford a district court’s Batson ruling “great deference” and “will not reverse the ruling unless it is clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

(citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)).

“A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

“The threshold test for the admissibility of evidence is the test of relevancy.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Wilson , d 373, 378 (Minn. 2017).

And we have affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude evidence where the evidence was “speculative and confusing,” or “not supported by an offer of proof,” see State v. Wilson

See, e.g., Harvey, d at 815 (concluding that the district court properly considered “that one African-American venire member had already been seated” on the jury) ; (determining that there was no inference of discrimination in part because “the State accepted one black juror”); Onyelobi, d at 348 (noting that because the defendant did not identify any other circumstance raising an inference of discrimination, it was significant that a minority venire

This explanation “need not be persuasive, or even plausible; so long as discriminatory intent is not inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason of fered [is] deemed race neutral.” (citation omitted) (internal question marks omitted).

Therefore, “even when a defendant alleges that his inability to present a defense violates his constitutional rights, evidentiary questions are reviewed for ab use of discretion.” (quotation omitted) .

See, e.g. , State v. Wilson , , 382 (Minn. 2017) ; see also Onyelobi , d at 345 .

“But this right is n ot absolute” as “[c]riminal defendants are bound by the rules of evidence, 5 which are designed to assure fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.” State v. Wilson , (citations omitted).

“Peremptory challen ges allow a party to strike a p rospective juror that the party believes will be less fair than some others and, by this proce ss, to select as final jurors the persons they believe will be most fair.” (quotation omitted).

“But this right is not absolute” as “[c]riminal defendants are bound by the rules of evidence, which are designed to assure fairness and reliability in ascertaining gui lt or innocence.” (citations omitted) .

State v. Wilson , , 378 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

See State v. Wilson , (“[E]videntiary questions are re viewed for abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)).

“Peremptory challenges allow a party to strike a prospective juror that the party believes will be less fair than some others and, by this process, to select as final jurors the persons they believe will be most fair.” State v. Wilson , (quot ation omitted ).