Cited by

See Griffin, d at 262 (explaining that we consider “the entirety of the trial” to determine if a mistrial should have been granted); (stating “we examine the entire record” when reviewing the denial of a motion for mistrial).

16 “We generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper [evidence] is presented to the jury unless there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’” ().

(rejecting appellant’s framing of an evidentiary error as a due-process violation).

9 Fravel also contends that the expert’s testimony amounted to impermissible propensity evidence of Fravel’s character, citing to our cases on eliciting impermissible character evidence, including testimony that the defendant fit a drug courier profile ( 548 (Minn. 1994)), testimony that the defendant possessed pornographic images (), and the prosecutor’s inflammatory descriptions of the defendant ().

prejudicial evidence, we will not reverse a conviction based on the district’s court refusal to declare a mistrial unless “there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would be different if the event that prompted the motion had not occurred.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); –73, 476 (Minn. 2019) (explaining the rule articulated in Manthey).

“But the fact that the jury heard inadmissible testimony does not end our inquiry.”

9 significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

Hanners bears the burden “to establish a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the wrongfully admitted testimony not come in.”

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” d 466, 472 (Minn. 2019).

11 conducting a harmless-error review, appellate courts “examine the entire record,” and “cannot focus only on evidence of guilt.”

To demonstrate that a new trial is warranted, an appellant must show that “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” –74 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” d 466, 472 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts will reverse a verdict when there is a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

see State v. Jaros , , 472 (Minn. 2019) (“ We generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper testimony is presented to the jury unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted)).

That is, we “generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper [evidence] is presented to the jury unless there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’” (citation omitted).

whether the district court issued cautionary instructions,” and “whether the State relied on the inadmissible evidence to make its case during its closing argument.” (quotation omitted).

“The burden rests on [the defendant] to establish a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the wrongfully admitted testimony not come i n.” d 466, 472 (Minn. 2019).

ANALYSIS I. We “generally will not reverse a verdict even when improper [evidence] is presented to the jury unless there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’ ” (citation omitted).

The supreme court recently held that the Cox four-factor test does not apply if there is no claim that “the jury was exposed to potentially prejudicial material outside of the trial 10 process.” 3 (Minn. 2019) (emphasis added).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

Even if evidence is erroneously admitted, we generally will not reverse “ unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

We will not determine that a district court abused 6 its discretion unless “its decision was based on an erroneous view of the law or was against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted); (quotations omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”

Rutten v. Rutten , (M inn.

Even when improper vouching testimony is admitted, we will not reverse a conviction unless the appellant establishes “a reasonable possibility that the [fact- finder] would have reached a different verdict had the wrongfully admitted testimony not come in.”

9 We observe that, “even if a district cour t applies the wrong legal standard, if the ruling was warranted under the proper standard and no prejud ice results, reversal is not required.” n.5 (Minn. 2019).

n.5 (Minn. 2019) (“The manifest-necessity standard is used only when a mistrial is declared without the defendant’s consent .”) (quotation omitted) (emphasi s in original).

E ven when a district court has erred by admitti ng improper evidence, appellate courts will not require a new trial “unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

This record does not persuade us that “the jury would have reached a different verdict had the wrongfully admitted testimony not come in.” d 466, 472 (Minn. 2019).

Moreover, even when improp er evidence is admitted, we generally will not require a new trial “unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evid ence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Jaros , (quotation omitted).

It also does not appellant, the supreme court , in State v. Jaros , explained that the Cox standard did not apply because “Jaros does not contend that the jury was exposed to potentially prejudicial material outside of the trial process.” .

We also consider whether the State relied on the inadmissible evidence to make its case during its closing argument.” (citation omitted).

When a jury hears inadmissible evidence, an appellate court will not reverse a verdict unless “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

3 and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).