Cited by

Thoresen, d at 308; (declining to adopt the judicial estoppel doctrine).

3 -68 (Minn. 3 Allen challenges the admission of this other-acts evidence on appeal.

“Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

9 See, (stating that “[e]very criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984) (providing that “[u]nder the D

“Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

In determining whether offenses are related, a district court considers whether they were “part of a single behavioral incident or course of conduct.”

Clear and convincing evidence Bhujel first argues that the second coworker’s allegations do “not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence.” “Clear and convincing evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

(stating rule in context of evidentiary challenge based on the constitutional right to present complete defense)

“[E]ven when a defendant alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (stating rule in the context of an evidentiary challenge based on the constitutional right to present a defense).

-59 (Minn. 1999) (“Only if the offenses are found to be related does the court proceed to decide whether severance is nonetheless required because the joinder would be prejudicial.”).

State v. Profit , d 451, 462 (Minn. 1999).

Co. , ; State v. Profit , d 451, 462 (Minn. 1999).

Relevant factors in determining whether an offense constitutes a “single behavioral incident” are “the time and geographic proximity” of the offenses and whether the conduct behind the offenses was “motivated by a single criminal objective.” 460 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

d 451, 458-60 (Minn. 2007).

B. Prejudice When a district court erroneously joins separate offenses, we remand for separate proceedings only when the error is “prejudicially erroneous.” d 451, 460 (Minn. 1999); see also State v. Kates , -31 (Minn. 2000) (clarifying that for purposes of joinder, we do not apply the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” ).

And even if a district court erred by not severing charges, a new trial is only required if joinder of the charges was “prejudicially erroneous.”

d 451, 463 (Minn. 1999).

“We have traditionally analyzed joinder using the same restrictive test we developed i n applying Minn. Stat. § 609.035.”

To determine if offenses are related, we ask whether the of fenses are connected as a “single behavioral incident.” ().

Judicial estoppel “is intended to prevent a party from assuming inconsistent or contradictory positions during the course of a lawsui t,” State v. Pendleton , d 500, 507 (Minn. 2005), in order “to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. 5 Profit

A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, capriciously, or 4 contrary to legal usage.” n.3 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

(“[T]he accused ‘must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct.

A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage.” n.3 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

He quotes State v. Profit for the principle that “the existence of a common plan, alone, is simply insufficient to support joinder.” 460 (Minn. 1999) (holding that charges involving a May 1996 murder of one woman and an August 1996 sexual assault of another woman were improperly joined for trial).

Charges are related if they form part of a “single behavioral incident or course of conduct.”