Cited by

Where the evidence of guilt is strong, and the case is not close factually, we are less inclined to order a new trial for cumulative error.” (quotations and citation omitted).

“Where the evidence of guilt is strong, and the case is not close factually, we are less inclined to order a new trial for cumulative error.” d 362, 366 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

cumulative error, we look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the [s]tate’s case.” (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) ().

Where the evidence of guilt is strong, and the case is not close factually, we are less inclined to order a new trial for cumulative error.” (quotations and citation omitted).

Appellants cite a criminal case, for the principle that “a defendant is entitled to a new trial if the cumulative effects of the errors that occurred during the trial denied him a fair trial.” Even assuming without deciding that the cumulative-error doctrine applies to civil cases, the doctrine does not warrant a new trial in

16 Moreover, to obtain relief on appeal, Stone must show “a reasonable possibility that the alleged error substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Where the evidence of guilt is strong, and the case is not close factually, we are less inclined to order a new trial for cumulative error.” (quotations and citation omitted).

Lindahl argues that “[t]he cumulative effect of the errors in this case deprived [him] of a fair trial.” “When considering a claim of cumulative error, we look to the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case.” (quotation omitted).

When faced with a claim of cumulative error, appellate courts examine “the egregiousness of the errors and the strength of the State’s case.” (quotation omitted).

When determining whether erroneously admitted evidence substantially affected the jury’s verdict, “we consider whether the district court provided the jury a cautionary instruction, whether the State dwelled on the evidence in closing argument, and whether the evidence of guilt was strong.” -66 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts will not reverse based on an evidentiary error unless “a reasonable possibility” exists that the error “substantially affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).