Cited by

(explaining that “[t]he general rule is that this court will not consider evidence outside the record” and that “[a] reviewing court cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal and any matters not part of the record must be stricken” (citation and quotation omitted)).

Accordingly, any matters submitted to the court that are not part of the record generally “must be stricken.” (quotation omitted).

“The general rule is that this court will not consider evidence outside the record.”

“The general rule is that this court will not consider evidence outside the record.”

“The general rule is that this court will not consider evidence outside the record.”

A reviewing court “cannot base i ts decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” State v. Breaux , (quotation omitted) .

(“A reviewing court cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal.” (quotation omitted)); State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (stating that a party’s failure to support an argument with proper “argument or authorities” will not be conside

(“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.”).

d 326, 334 (Minn. App. 2001).

To analyze whether a district court’s error in proceeding without a defendant present was harmless, we consider the stre ngth of the evidence in the record and “what the defendant would have contributed to his defense if he had been present.” Id.; -33 (Minn. App. 2001).

d 326, 334 (Minn. App. 2001) (“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.”).

This sentence is within the presumptive sentencing range and Breaux, (“A reviewing court cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal and any matters not part of the record must be stricken.” (quotation omitted)).

State v. Breaux , (“A reviewing court cannot base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal and any matters not part of the record must be stricken.” (quotation omitted)).

See (“Proximity is an important factor when establishing constructive possession.”); (reasoni ng that the close proximity of a banned substance near the defendant was a factor pe rmitting a jury to infer she had constructive possession of t

“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.” State v. Porte , (quoting State v. Breaux , ).

(stating that “matters not part of the record must be stricken” (quotation omitted)).

8 (defining the appellate record to include “documents filed in the district court, the offered exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); (stating that appellate court may not base its decision on matters not contained in appellate record).

“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.”

Moreover, the sock was found approximately five feet from where Schmidt was tackled and “[p]roximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.”

“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.”

We also take into account “what the defendant would have contributed to his defense if he had been present.”

(stating that a statute was constitutional and properly used despite the fact that it clearly conflicted with a then-existing rule of procedure); (same).

Id.; (noting that this court looks to the “record as a whole” (quotation omitted)).