Cited by

“The rationale for this exception stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

1 The presumptive sentence is 130 to 183 months’ imprisonment.

See Berrisford, d at 850 (determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting statements of a declarant who appeared “scared,” “shaky,” and “very upset”); (holding that the excited utterance exception applied when the declarant was “very upset,” 11 “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”)

State v. Bauer , 15 see also State v. Mayhorn , -85 (Minn. 2006) (determining that the district court erred in admitting strained relationship evidence because the state failed to prove the prior conflict between the relevant parties by clear and convincing evidence); State v. Hormann, 805 N.

Zinski refers to, but does not adopt, , that the instruction be give n “prior to the admission of .

Although Spreigl/rule 404(b) notice is not required before introducing relationship evidence under this standard, “[c]ourts typically apply parts of the Spreigl/rule 404(b) analysis to relationship evidence,” Hormann, d at 890, including that the district court must fin d the prior bad act by clear and convincing evidence

In response, the state, maintained that the district court should not require the entire interview to be played because the portion being played was not misleading to the jury a nd because the balance of Dolo’ s statements were self-serving hearsay.

In urging us to reach a different conclusion, Zinski relies on State v. Bauer

State v. Bauer , d 352, 365 (Minn. 1999).

Though a conviction based on circumst antial evidence merits higher scrutiny, “circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same we ight as direct evidence.” d 352, 370 (Minn. 1999).

Though a conviction based on circumstantial evidence merits higher scrutiny, “circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

While a conviction based on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny, “circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the sa me weight as direct evidence.”

But “[w]hile it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

State v. Bauer , 5 (Minn. 1999).

However, “[w]hile it warrants st ricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.” State v. Bauer

However, “[w]hile it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

While a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny, “circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evide nce.” State v. Bauer

“While it warrants stricter s crutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

State v. Bauer , (quotation omitted).

“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.” State v. Bauer , d 352, 370 (Minn. 1999).

“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to th e same weight as direct evidence.” State v. Bauer

But unless relationship evidence is inde pendently admissible under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, such evidence is admissible only on the district court’s determinations that “there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the prior bad act” and “the probative value of the evidence outweig hs any potential for unfair prejudice .” 64 (Minn. 1999); see Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (providing for admissibility of relationship evidence “unl ess the probative value is substantially outweighed by

(admitting statement as excited utterance because declarant was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”).

“The rationale for this exception stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

(stating hearsay statement was admissible as excited utterance where declarant’s condition, “extremely agitated, upset, and afraid,” indicated she was still under stress caused by the event at the time the statement was made).

“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

“The rationale for this exception stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

“While it warrants stricter scrutiny, circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence.”

If the evidence is allowed, “[a]s a general rule, even absent a request by the defense, [limiting instructions] should be given prior to the admission of [the] 404(b) evidence and again at the end of trial to help ensure that the jury does not use the evidence for an improper purpose.”

The supreme court has held that a statement falls within the excited-utterance exception when a witness testifies that the declarant was “very upset, extremely agitated, and very afraid.” (quotation marks omitted).