Cited by

at 572-74; see also Griffin, d at 525 (explaining that, despite the absence of a certified copy of conviction, the state introduced sufficient information to meet its burden of proving that the defendant had a prior conviction); -83 (Minn. App. 1984) (explaining that in-court statements from probation officer outlining efforts undertaken to prove conviction provided sufficient “[o]ther evidence of the contents of official records” in the absence of a certified copy of a conviction).

Although the state may substantiate out -of- state offenses with credible testimony from a probation officer, the state offered no testimony or other evidence to support the PSI’s report of Condon’s out-of-state offenses.

(describing the difference between a burden of production and a burden of persuasion); d 681, 683 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that the state must establish the validity of a prior conviction “by a fair preponderance of the evidence”).

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

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

State v. Jackson , -83 (Minn. App. 1984).

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 provided the district court with advice and unsworn testimony regarding the conviction in lieu of a certified copy of the out -of-state conviction) with Maley, d at 710-13 (determining

Similarly, we determined that the state sufficiently proved an out-of-state conviction when a probation officer provided the district court with advice and unsworn testimony regarding his conviction, although the state did not present a certified copy of the out-of-state conviction.

Id.; (holding that, despite lack of certified copy of California felony conviction, probation officer’s unsworn “advice and testimony” at sentencing hearing proved conviction).

1005 1977 comm, cmt.; (holding a probation officer’s statement to the court detailing his search for defendant’s foreign felony record to be sufficient under Rule 1005 to support a prior conviction).

“The state has the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions used to determine a defendant’s criminal history score.” (citation omitted).

the court stated: The state has the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions used to determine a defendant’s criminal history score.

This court has held: “Other evidence of contents includes oral testimony.” (Minn.Ct.