Cited by

If a district court admits out-of-court statements under this exception, the district court must “construe the term ‘statement’ narrowly and allow only those statements that directly inculpate the declarant and not admit a larger narrative that merely contains some inculpating statements.”

Courts must “construe the term ‘statement’ narrowly and allow only those statements that directly inculpate the declarant and not admit a larger narrative that merely contains some inculpating statements,” (emphasis added), especially when the declarant implicates someone else.

When admitting hearsay under this exception, the district court must “construe the term ‘statement’ narrowly and allow only those statements that directly inculpate the 12 declarant and not admit a larger narrative that merely contains some inculpating statements.” State v. T ovar

801(d)(2)(A); (affirming admission of defendant’s statements to jailhouse informant); (affirming admission of defendant’s statements to witness).

See State v. Tovar , (stating that, in general, only “clear and specific objections raised before the district court” will preserve the issue of admissibility of evidence for appeal ).

The state conten ds that the incoming text messages were not admitted to prove the truth of their contents, but instead to contextualize Freeman’s -26 (Minn. 2000).

See State v. Tovar , (noting that district courts have considerable latitude in evidentiary rulings).

“Thus, even when a defendant alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, evidentiary questions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

“[C]riminal defendants are bound by the rules of evidence, which are designed to assure fairness and reliability in ascertaining guilt or innocence.” ().

at 552 (“[A]dmission of testimonial statements does not implicate the Confrontation Clause if the stat ements are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”); State v. Tovar , (M inn.

(concluding that statements of police in interview of defendant were only offered as context for defendant’s statements and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause).

“[S]tatements of third parties [to a conversation] may be admissible to provide context for the responses and admissions sought to be admitted.” (holding that police statements in an interview were admissible because they were offered not “for their truth, but rather to give context to [the defendant’s] responses and admissions on the tape”).

the supreme court noted that an appellant should not be allowed to argue on appeal that the district court should have sua sponte excluded a part of a recording if trial counsel acquiesced to the admission of the recording for strategic reasons.

( 161-62 (Minn. 2009) (holding that failure to redact defendant’s statements about getting a lawyer from police interview was error).

(“Trial counsel cannot have it both ways: failing to raise a specific objection at trial for its own reasons of trial strategy, then claiming the admission of such evidence as error on appeal.”).

5 (“Absent clear and specific objections raised before the district court, [appellate courts] will generally not consider issues of admissibility of evidence raised for the first time on appeal.”).