Cited by

See McNeilly, d at 193–97 (exercising our authority to regulate and supervise the rules that govern admitting evidence in the lower courts to establish prospective rules for admitting evidence obtained during searches of attorney offices); (exercising our supervisory powers over admitting evidence to establish a prospective rule for admitting relationship evidence under Minnesota Statutes section 634.20); –93 (Minn. 1994) (exercising our supervisory power to establish prospective parameters for

to illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.”

(d 413, 422 (Minn. 2006) (“Failure to request specific jury instructions or to object to instructions given generally results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.”)).

1 Evidence admitted under this statute is referred to as “relationship evidence.”

(noting that evidence offered under section 634.20 is known as “relationship evidence”).

to illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between 8 the two.” ().

Evidence admitted under section 634.20 is often referred to as “relationship evidence.” See State v. Zinski

Evidence admitted under section 634.20 is often referred to as “relationship evidence.”

“[W]hen a district court admits relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, over a defendant’s objection that the evidence does not satisfy section 634.20, the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to the instruction by the court.”

28 Fourth, neither Mejia -Bonilla nor Dalton address the Minnesota Supreme Court’s that, “when a district court admits relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, over a defendant’s objection that the evidence does not satisfy section 634.20, the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to the instruction b

(requiring a defendant “to object to the admission of relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 before a district court is required to provide a cautionary instruction”).

Evidence offered under section 634.20 is known as “relationship evidence.”

“[A]n error is plain if it contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Evidence offered under section 634.20 is commonly referred to as “relationship evidence.”

An error is plain when it “contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. 5 Zinski, ().

Relationship evidence “is evidence of prior conduct between the accused and the alleged victim” that “may be offered to illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.” (quotations omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 634.20.

Admission of this “relationship ev idence” over a defendant’s objection requires the district court to “sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant 14 objects to the instruction by the court.” -79 (Minn. 2019).

(stating that the defendant forfeited their right to appellate review of jury instructions where they did not request that an instruction include the proper use for certain evidence or object to the final jury instructions).

To satisfy the plain -error doctrine, Patino must establish: “(1) an erro r, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.” d 272, 275 (Minn. 2019).

To satisfy the plain-error doctrine, the appellant must establish: “(1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.”

Cautionary Jury Instruction In State v. Zinski, the supreme court adopted the rule that if “a district court admits relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, over a defendant’s objection that the evidence does not satisfy section 634.20, the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to the instruction by the court.”

(discussing plain-error standard).

“If 5 the first three prongs are satisfied, the appellate court considers whether reversal is required to ensure the fairness, inte grity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” n.5 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

“If the first three prongs are satisfied, the appellate court considers whether reversal is required to ensure the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” n.5 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to the instruction by the court.”

(“[W]hen a district court admits relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, over a defendant’s objection that the evidence does not satisfy section 634.20, the court must sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of such evidence, unless the defendant objects to the instruction by th