Cited by

Woodley also argues that the district court adopted the county’s explanation that substance-induced psychosis was “ruled out.” But the arguments of counsel are not evidence, and the district court’s order does not repeat this inaccurate statement.

(discovery violation); (relationship evidence).

(affirming the admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”).

to illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between 8 the two.” ().

Accordingly, in homicide cases, “the state may offer information about the victim’s life, but may not use it as an attempt to influence the jury’s decision on the basis of prejudice or passion.”

d 153, 161 (Minn. 2004).

Matthews, d at 549; (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting relationship “evidence that, if believed by the jury, could have assisted the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”).

It “illuminate[s] the history of the relationship” between the defendant and the alleged victim, and “put[s] the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.”

v. Olson, (reversing a district court’s issuance of an order for protection when “the district court received no evidence of domestic abuse through sworn testimony or documents admitted into evidence” and based its finding of domestic abuse on only inadmissible hearsay statements); (“The questions and arguments of attorneys are not evidence.”).

(affirming the admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (deciding that the relationship evidence in

The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted Minnesota Statutes section 634.20 as a rule of evidence to allow for “the admission of evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the alleged victim of domestic abuse.” -61 (Minn. 2004)

WL 4008478, at *5 (Minn. App. Aug.

-61 (Minn. 2004) (explaining that the “history of the relationship between an accused and a [domestic-violence] victim” differs from “collateral [other-acts] evidence” (quotation omitted)); (noting the “distinctions” made between rule 404(b) evidence and

n.4 (Minn. 2006) (describing evidence admissible under section 634.20 as a type of 10 “relationship evidence”).

Juring relies on State v. McCoy, in which the supreme court held that section 634.20 “provides for the admission of evidence of ‘similar conduct’ by the accused.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2002)).

unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; (adopting Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as a rule of evidence).

(“[T]he ‘questions and arguments’ of attorneys are not evidence.”) Moreover, those arguments do not support that the district court issued an oral order at the October hearing.

Such evidence is presumptively admissible; it is only excluded when its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.; (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing relationship evidence because it “could have assisted the jury by providing a context with[in] which it could better ju

places the event[s] in context); (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing relationship “evidence that, if believed by the jury, could have assisted the jury by providing a context with[in] which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”).

(noting that “arguments of attorneys are not evidence”) (quotation omitted); see also Tang v. I.N.S., 223 F.3d 713, 720 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that factual assertions in a brief were “argument of counsel and not evidence”).

The purpose of this rule, as the supreme court noted, is “to illuminate the history of the relationship” between the defendant and the alleged victim and “to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.”

(“[T]he questions and arguments of attorneys are not evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

The purpose of section 634.20 is “to illuminate the history of the relationship” between the defendant and the alleged victim and thereby “put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.” d 153, 159 (Minn. 2004).

Minnesota law provides for the admission of relationship evidence “unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; (adopting Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as a rule of 10 evidence).