Cited by

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

“saw Lafore dressed in jail clothes and identified as the defendant in her case.” Therefore, he argues, B.J.K.’s in-court identification of Lafore as her assailant was not “reliable and consistent with due process.” 8 Appellate courts review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and this court has reviewed a district court’s decision to admit identification evidence for abuse of discretion, (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(reviewing evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing unobjected-to errors for plain error).

A district court has broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings, and we will reverse them only if the district court abused its discretion, and the abuse of discretion was harmful, meaning that the “wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict,” Jaros, d at 472.

d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003).

The “appellant has the burden of establishing that the district court abused its discretion that [the] appellant was thereby prejudiced.”

Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

d 201, 203 (Minn. 2003).

Appellant bears “the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discr etion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.”

Appellant bears “the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that [the] appellant was thereby prejudiced.”