Cited by

-50 (Minn. 2018) (stating that forfeited issues are reviewed for plain error); State v. Rodriguez , (providing that “[a]n objection must be specific as to the grounds for challenge” and that a defendant does not preserve for appeal an objection made on different grounds th

See, e.g. , -50 (Minn. 2018).

“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 , d 642, 649 (Minn. 2018).

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

Generally, “[a] defendant’s objection to the admission of evidence preserves review only for the stated basis for the objection.”

“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 defe ndant’s substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).

“A ppellate review of an eviden tiary issue is forfeited when a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

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

“‘Waiver’ is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.” n.4 (Minn. 2018).

See State v. Vasquez , (M inn.

Appellate courts “review a district court’s decision to admit e vidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Vasquez

State v. Bahtuoh , , 819 (Minn. 2013) (stating that denial of a *472 motion for a mistrial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion because "the district court is in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial impact, if any, of an event occurring during the trial."); see State v. Vasquez , , 648 (Minn. 2018) (reviewing the district court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion).

d 642, 649 (Minn. 2018).

State v. Vasquez , , 650 (Minn. 2018) (quotation 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.” (quotation omitted).

“Appellate review of an evidenti a r y i s s u e i s f o r f e i t e d w h e n a defendant fails to object to the admission of evidence.”

“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.” (quotation omitted).

We will not hold that the district court abused its discretion unless its decision is “against logic and the facts on record.” –49 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“A court abuses its discretion when it reaches a ‘clearly erroneou s conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.’” State v. Vasquez , 3 Neither party contests that th e state’s untimely notice of exp ert testimony violated discovery rules.

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