Cited by

argument on appeal rests on his contention that R.C.’s mother’s testimony “went beyond typical ‘spark of life’ testimony.” “Spark of life” evidence consists of biographical testimony about the victim to show that “[t]he victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life.” -26 (Minn. 2016) (d 204, 207 (Minn. 1985)).

12 “Spark of life” evidence consists of biographical testimony about the victim to show that “[t]he victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life.” –26 (Minn. 2016) ().

Reasoning that a “victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life[,]” the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he prosecution has some leeway to show that spark and present the victim as a human being.” –27 (Minn. 2013) (alteration in original) ().

See, e.g., State v. Graham , (“If the defendant does not go forward with such evidence, there is no right to the self-defense instruction.” (emphasis added)).

replied, “Yes, I think that I could do that.” We defer to the district court’s ruling on challenges for cause because the district court is “in the best position to observe and judge the demeano r of the prospective juror.” State v. Graham

-09 (Minn. 1990); d 204, 206 (Minn. 1985).

State v. Graham , -09 (Minn. 1985).

“A reviewing court should give deference to the district court’s ruling on challenges for cause because the district court is ‘in the best position to observe and judge the demeanor of the prospective juror.’” (); (holding that the question of whether a juror is impartial is a credibility determination and that appellate courts defer to a district court’s finding of impartiality).

We have allowed such evidence at trial “so long as it is not an attempt to invoke undue sympathy or inflame the passions of the jdry,” ().

See, –07 (Minn. 1985) (upholding district court’s decision not to remove juror for cause when prospective juror stated that in the past she had believed defendant to be guilty but currently believed she could presume defendant innocent and fairly try case).

Although “it is true that the quality or personal details of the victim’s life are not strictly relevant to the issue of who murdered the victim, it would seem to tie unduly the hands of the prosecutor to prohibit any mention of the victim’s life.”

A reviewing court should give deference to the district court’s ruling on challenges for cause because the district court is “in the best position to observe and judge the demean- or of the prospective juror.” see also Logan, d at 323 (holding that the question of whether a juror is impartial is a credibility determination and that appellate courts defer to a district court’s finding of impartiality).

In other words, we have said that the prosecution may present evidence that the victim was more than “just bones and sinews covered with flesh”; rather, the victim was “imbued with the spark of life.”

) (stating that “[t]he process of *630 going forward with evidence is complete when the defendant submits reasonable evidence”); -73 (Minn.1986) (determining that there was no evidence that defendant, who was the original aggressor, had clearly-manifested the good-faith intention to withdraw required when seeking a self-defense instruction); (determining that one element of self-defense argument was “not supported with any evidence”) (emphasis added).