Cited by

“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).

Finally, t he state argues that the evidence is admissible because it was part of the “crime scene.” The state cites cases that discuss the admissibility of objects connected to a crime scene, including State v. Hallmark

d 281, 301 (Minn. 2019) (reviewing the appellant’s pro se argument that he was prejudiced by a sleeping juror as a juror misconduct claim, which requires a party to show actual misconduct and prejudice from the misconduct).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic 13 and the facts on record.” (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).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an 8 erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks 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).

“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).

The supreme court has stated “that the term prejudice in Rule 403 does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” (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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, (concluding that the district court abused its discretion by erroneously determining that certain testimony was inadmissible as a matter of law when the district court had discretion

“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.” State v. 4 Hallmark, (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).

“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).

“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).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on 7 an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (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).

d 281, 300 (Minn. 2019).1 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

“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).

“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).

“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).

d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019).

“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).

“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.” State v. Hallmark , (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.” ().

“Although prior sworn statements— 7 made under oath and subject to cross-examination —are generally more reliable than unsworn statements, [the supreme court has] noted that a totality of the circumstances approach should be used in evaluating the trustworthiness of the statement regardless of whether the statement was sworn or unsworn.” ().

“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).

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

“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against 6 logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, the “ decision to admit hearsay statements under Rule 807 has two steps.”

“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).