Cited by

See, -85 (Minn. 2003); WL 1271875, at *5 (Minn. App. Mar.

We have said these two defenses parallel each other, but have recently articulated that as to the fourth element—the duty to retreat—for a claim of defense of others “a defendant must subjectively believe that the person in peril has no reasonable possibility of safe retreat, and that belief must be objectively reasonable based on the information a

(stating that justification for homicide in defense of others parallels self-defense when concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding character evidence about the victim); n.2 (Minn. 1972) (using the same language when concluding

6 “Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the [district] court.” d 267, 284 (Minn. 2003).

Error related to the exclusion of evidence is harmless if the verdict is “surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Richardson , (quotation omitted).

When the defendant’s right to testify conflicts with a rule of evidence, the constitution demands that restrictions imposed on that right “not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” ( quoting Rock, 483 U.S. at 56, 107 S. Ct. at 2704).

“If a district court’s evidentiary ruling is determined to be erroneous, and the error reaches the level of a constitutional error, such as denying the defendant the right to present a defense, our standard of review is whether the exc lusion of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ( (quotation omitted)).

State v. Richardson , -78 (Minn. 2003).

We look to “past sentences imposed on other offenders when dete rmining the propriety of c onsecutive sentencing.”

r incident where A.L. stabbed his hand, we conclude that the evidence in question goes to appellant’s state of mind, and appellant was not required to have provided notice of the evidence to the state.3 3 Had the evidence been introduced to show prior acts by A.L. and cast reasonable doubt on the state’s claim of his guilt, the “reverse-404(b)” or “reverse- Spreigl” analysis would be appropriate, including consideration of whether the evidence would “establish motive, intent, absence of mistake

6 exclusion of evidence is harmless if the verdict is “surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).

Id.; (noting that defense-of- others parallels self-defense).

State v. Richardson , 282 (Minn. 2003).

But the right to present a defense is not without limitations; parties must comply with “procedural and evidentiary rules designed to ensure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (quotations omitted).

Restrictions on the right to testify must “not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” State v. Richardson , (quoting Rock, 483 U.S. at 55-56, 107 S. Ct. at 2711).

“The right to present a defense is not without limitations, however—in exercising this right, both the accused and the state must comply with procedural and evidentiary rules designed to ensure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (quotation omitted).

Consecutive sentencing of sex-trafficking convictions with multiple victims “is permissive and within the broad discretion of the [district] court.” ; Minn. Sent.

In exercising the right to presen t a complete defense, the de fendant must comply with evidentiary rules “designed to ensure both fairness and reliab ility in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (quotation omitted).

d 267, 277 (Minn. 2003) (“Due process requires that every defendant be ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” ()), accord U.S. Const. amend.

“Due process requires that every defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” d 267, 277 (Minn. 2003) (quotations omitted).

In exercising the right to present a complete defense, the defendant must comply with evidentiary rules “designed to ensure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (quotation omitted).

rulings [excluding a defendant’s evidence] absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

We will not overturn a district court’s evidentiary rulings “absent a clear abuse of discretion.” d 267, 277 (Minn. 2003).