Cited by

A. This court has long stated that it “ ‘largely defer[s] to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling.’ ” (quoting State v. Kelly, C/D-1 ).

(postconviction petition); (evidentiary rulings).

d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989).

(), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“Appellate courts largely defer to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling.” 1 1 We question whether Hjeldness adequately preserved this issue for appeal.

“A district court’s evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, and we ‘largely defer to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling.’ ” ().

If the district court erroneously excludes defense character evidence in violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense, “the decision will not be reversed if it is found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citing State v. Larson , ); see also Pak, d at 628 (“We will not reverse a district court’ s exclusion of defense character evidence if our examination of the record satisfies us beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would not have acquitted even if it

d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989).

This court “will not lightly overturn a [district] court’s evidentiary ruling,” and “[a]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, the ruling will stand.”

We “largely defer to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling.”

For the state to prove the absence of heat of passion, it must prove the absence of two elements: “(1) the killing [was] done in the heat of passion, and (2) the passion [was] provoked by words and acts of another such as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances.” (holding an intentional killing may be mitigated if both elements are present); see also Robinson, d at 239 (holding proof of the “emotional state alone” will not “mitigate murder to manslaughter”).7 The

D E C I S I O N “Appellate courts largely defer to the trial court's exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court's evidentiary ruling.”

A district court’s evidentiary rulings will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, and we “largely defer to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s evidentiary ruling.”

(d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989)).

We accord deference “to the trial court’s exercise of discretion in evidentiary matters and will not lightly overturn a trial court’s eviden-tiary ruling.”