Cited by

of life” nor was its matter-of-fact nature likely to inflame the jury’s passions); (holding that 45-second video of the victim playing basketball during the emotional testimony of victim’s mother did not have potential for creating undue prejudice and arousing emotions of jurors that outweighed the probative value of the evidence); (holding that even though victim’s personal life was not strictly relevant to issue of who murdered him, the prosecution had some leeway to show the victim was imbued

-24 (Minn.1995); -07 (Minn.1985).

We have also allowed photographs showing that “ ‘[t]he victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life.’ ” ().

The state responds that it may properly introduce evidence concerning the life of a homicide victim and the photograph is relevant and admissible to show the “spark of life” and to present the victim as a human being ( (holding that even though victim’s personal life was not strictly relevant to issue of who murdered him, the prosecution had some leeway to show the victim was imbued with spark of life and to present the victim as a human being)).

(no abuse of discretion for failing to grant mistrial where prosecutor minimized any prejudice from emotional statement by asking for recess).

“Whether the probative value of the convictions outweighs their prejudicial effect is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted).

It is important to note that in the past we have held that evidence, including photographs, showing that “[t]he victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life,” is admissible so long as its use “is not an ‘attempt to invoke any undue sympathy or inflame the jury’s passions.’ ”

Whether the probative value of prior bad acts outweighs their'prejudicial effect “is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.”

(“The victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life.

: While 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.

Although a defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to support a claim of self-defense, if the defense is properly raised, the state must prove the non-existence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

(defendant, on appeal, complained of trial court’s denial of request to see videotape re-enactment of dogs tracking defendant after murder because tape was shown for illustrative purposes only and was not in evidence; “not being in evidence, the jury cannot use it in its deliberations”); State v. Foss

While there is no burden on appellant to prove self-defense at trial, he does have the “burden of going forward with evidence to support his claim of self-defense.” ().

we explained the preliminary burden a defendant must meet in order to justify a self-defense instruction, While there is no burden on a defendant to prove self-defense, the defendant does have the “burden of going forward with evidence to support his claim of self-defense.”