Cited by

“If a defendant does object to the admission of evidence, such an objection ‘preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.’” d 752, 757 (Minn. 2025) ().

10 (reviewing for plain error when the defendant made a hearsay objection, but not a Confrontation Clause objection); (applying plain-error standard of review to forfeited evidentiary objection).

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when it reaches a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” d 642, 648 (Minn. 2018) (quotations omitted).

“A defendant is entitled to relief from a plain error if (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” d 642, 650 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

(“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

(“Appellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”).

“The complexity and subtlety of the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions make it particularly important that a full discussion of admissibility be conducted at trial.” , 6 49 (Minn. 2018) (“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

Appellate courts review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.” -50 (Minn. 2018) (articulating that plain-error review applies to forfeited issues, such as where defendant fails to object to state’s admission of evidence).

Further, “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

“A defendant may preserve a claim of evidentiary error by making a pretrial motion to exclude the challenged evidence or by objecting at trial when the evidence is introduced.” State v. Vasquez

(“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

“A defendant may preserve an evidentiary error by making a pretrial motion to exclude the challenged evidence or by objecting at trial when the evidence is introduced.”

“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”

to preserve a claim of error.” If a defendant does object to the admission of evidence, such an objection “preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”

(“Appellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”).

“Erroneously introduced evidence affects the defendant’s substantial rights if it significantly influences the verdict by going to a critical issue at the trial or is central to the prosecution’s case.”

“Appellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

Typically, “[a]ppellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

(-18 (Minn. 2014)) (“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”).

P. 31.02; -50 (Minn. 2018) (reasoning that defendant’s objection preserved review only for stated basis of objection).

“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection.”

(stating that “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection”); d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issu

(declaring that party’s “failure to raise the issue before the district court at trial precludes its litigation on appeal”); (stating that “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection or a basis apparent from the context of the objection”).

(reviewing unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error); (reviewing an unobjected-to evidentiary ruling for plain error).

n.2 (Minn. 2014) (“But to properly preserve a claim that evidence should be excluded under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, a defendant must timely object and state the specific ground of objection.” (quotations omitted)); see also State v. Vasquez , (“A defendant ’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection .

2006) (articulating the plain - error standard for unobjected -to hearsay) ; State v. Vasquez , -50 (Minn. 2018) (“A defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection[,]” and other grounds for objection not raised to the district court are forfeited.

“Appellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

“A court abuses its discretion when it reaches a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotations omitted).

Misconduct “affects the defendant’s substantial rights if it significantly influences the verdict by going to a critical issue at the trial or [if it] is central to the prosecution’s case.”

A district court abuses its discretion if its conclusion “is against logic and the facts on record.”

Forfeiture “Appellate review of an evidentiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

(discussing that a defendant may preserve a claim of error by objecting at trial).

DECISION “Appellate review of an evidentiary i ssue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

“Appellate review of an evidentiary issu e is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”