Cited by

d 731, 739 (Minn. 1996) (holding that, in the absence of evidence documenting the victim’s loss, a restitution award must be reversed).

(vacating restitution award due to lack of evidence of loss).

“Evidentiary errors warrant reversal if there is any reasonable doubt the result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” State v. Grayson , (quotation omitted).

“Evidentiary errors warrant reversal if there is any reasonable doubt the result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” (quotation omitted).

In addition, the restitution statutes “contemplate that before restitution can be ordered, the victim’s loss must be documented.”

“Evidentiary errors warrant reversal if there is any reasonable doubt th e result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” State v. Grayson , (quotation omitted).

4 “Evidentiary errors warrant reversal if there is any reasonable doubt the result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” State v. Grayson , (quotation omitted).

404(b)(5); (concluding that evidence of defendant’s familiarity and agreement with Malcolm X was unfairly prejudicial in guilt phase of murder trial).

Such errors require reversal “if there is any reasonable doubt that the result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.” (quotation omitted).

401; -37 (Minn. 1996) (concluding that testimony regarding the defendant’s view of white women was relevant to an evaluation of his version of events).

The t-shirt also favorably highlighted the “30s,” and Morris testified that he is not in the “30s,” or “Rolling 30s Bloods,” but that he is closely affiliated with them as a member of “Tyson’s Mob.” Jackson argues that Morris’s t-shirt is not relevant because it is not tied to the October 5, 2006 shootings

“A defendant who claims that the trial court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.”

“Evidentiary errors warrant reversal if ‘there is any reasonable doubt the result would have been different had the evidence not been admitted.’ ” ().

in which we held that it was an abuse of discretion to admit into evidence defendant’s “Malcolm X” hat when the hat had no connection with and played no role in the crime charged.

Appellant claims that testimony about Ford’s

“Evidentiary rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (internal quotation omitted).

This court’s consideration of Folkers’ claim on this issue is governed by the concept that “[ejvidentiary * * * rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted).

This court’s review of a trial court’s ruling under this provision is governed by our previous determination that “[ejvidentiary * * * rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted).