Cited by

To meet this burden, the state must “produce evidence to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence the validity of the prior convictions, the fact that the defendant was the person involved, and that the crimes constituted felonies in Minnesota.”

In particular, the state must “produce evidence to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence the validity of the prior convictions, the fact that the defendant was the person involved, and that the crimes constituted felonies in Minnesota.”

at 710-12 (concluding that the state’s reliance on a sentencing worksheet alone was insufficient to substantiate the defendant’s out-of-state convictions); (concluding that the state met its burden of proof by providing the district court with “considerable documentation” of the defendant’s out-of-state conviction).

(explaining that the state may prove the conviction by a copy of the conviction “certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original” or, if such a copy “cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then oth

3 evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crimes constituted felonies in Minnesota.” ().

’” (), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

(concluding the state had met its burden by offering “considerable documentation” of the defendant’s prior conviction).

(concluding that, on remand, the state was permitted to further develop the record on out-of- state convictions because the defendant did not object to the district court’s determination regarding the convictions), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); (holding that the state may prove the conviction by a copy of the conviction “certified as correct in accordance with [Minn. R. Evid.]

If a certified copy of a non-Minnesota conviction “cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

Maley, d at 712 (permitting district courts to rely on uncertified out-of-state convictions in computing a defendant ’s criminal -history score ).

The “ plain view doctrine” provides that no Fourth Amendment violation occurs where a police officer sees or seizes “what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband 7 when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.” (quotation omitted).

As a rule, “[t]he state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence ‘the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state c onvictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.’” (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

To satisfy that burden, “ the state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.” (citi ng State v. Griffin , ).

“The state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.” Maley, d at 711 ().

Compare State v. Griffin , (hold ing that the state is not required to supply certified copies of the conviction when it presented considerable documentation) and State v. Jackson , (determining that the state sufficiently proved an out- of-state conviction when a probation officer prov

The state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidenc e that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.1

See State v. Griffin , , 525 (Minn. 1983) (citing State v. Piri , 295 Minn. 247 , , 124 (Minn. 1973) ).

The state must “produce evidence to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence the validity of the prior convictions, the fact that the defendant was the pe rson involved, and that the crimes constituted felonies in Minnesota.”

“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence ‘the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.’” (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).