Cited by

Galvan notes that we again used similar language in State v. Quick , , 711 (Minn. 2003) (citing Auchampach , d at 817 ), suggesting that a defendant who kills with premeditation is guilty only of first-degree heat-of-passion manslaughter if the defendant also acted in the heat of passion.

(recognizing that failure to object to admission of evidence constitutes forfeiture).

We review erroneous evidentiary rulings for harmless error in cases where a defendant “contends that his constitutional rights have been violated.” d 701, 713 (Minn. 2003).

We review a district court’s erroneous exclusion of testimony in violation of a defendant’s due -process right for harmless error and will not reverse a conviction if the verdict was “surely unattributable to the error.”

An appellate court will not disturb the jury’s verdict “if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.” -10 (Minn. 2003).

The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions afford criminal defendants “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotations omitted).

An appellate court “will uphold the jury’s verdict if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the state’s burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty.” State v. Quick , –10 (Minn. 2003).

(“A defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense, which includes the right to offer the testimony of witnesses so that the defense can present its version of the facts to the jury.”).

(quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689 , 106 S.Ct.

Under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, a criminal defendant is “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotations omitted).

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Due process requires that a person accused of an offense be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted) (citing U.S. Const, amend.

1187 , 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965); -13 (Minn.2003).

at 292 ; (noting that evidence admitted in violation of a constitutional right is not harmless if there is “ ‘a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been different’ ” ()).

to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” ().

State v. Quick (Quick I)

The constitutional right to due process requires a person accused of a crime to “be treated with fundamental fairness” and “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.

See, -12 (Minn.2003) (bringing loaded rifle to estranged wife’s house, driving around the block so as not to be seen by the neighbor, and taking off shoes to walk up stairs supported inference of premeditation); -48, 253 (Minn.1999) (bringing rifle to estranged wife’s place of work

§ 626.14; (concluding that “[bjecause of the necessity of preserving and testing evidence at a crime scene in a timely manner, the nighttime provision was justified” under section 626.14); State v. Van Wert, 294 Minn. 464, 465 , (finding that nighttime search was authorized “[t]o prev

See, 569 (Minn.2004) (disbarring attorney convicted of felony mail fraud related to his practice of law); Oberhauser, d at 154-55 (disbarring attorney based on conviction of money laundering); (disbarring attorney who committed felony mail fraud in representing a trust); -15 (Minn.2000) (disbarring attorney convicted of felony mail fraud and racketeering); Anderley, d at 368, 370 (disbarring attorney based on a conviction of mail fraud); In re Kraemer

See *294 (stating that defendant who fails to object to jury-selection process forfeits right to object on appeal).

(quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-90 , 106 S.Ct.

-11 (Minn.2003) (citing Moore, d at 361 ).