Cited by

“Reversal is 16 warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.”

11 But such a statement is not admissible unless the witness’s credibility has been challenged and the statement will “bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”

(“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.”); Minn. R. Crim.

But such a statement is not admissible unless the witness’s credibility has been challenged and the statement will “bolster the witness’[s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’[s] credibility that was challenged.”

(noting that “before the statement can be admitted, the witness’ credibility must have been challenged”).

“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

See State v. Nunn , d 902, 907 (Minn. 1997) (stating that a defendant has the burden of proving that the district court abused its discretion when ruling on an evidentiary issue).

“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

801(d)(1)(B); -09 (Minn. 1997) (affirming admission of witness’s testimony about her prior out-of- court statement); -10 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming admission of videotaped interview of victim on ground that victim’s testimony was central to case), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

To show prejudice under harmless-error review, the appellant must establish “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Nunn , (stating that on appeal the defendant has the burden to establish both that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result).

“[T]he [out-of- court] statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”

“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.”

However, before a prior consistent statement can be admitted, “the witness’ credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”

We will reverse “only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision.” State v. DeShay , ().

-07 (Minn. 1997).9 But even if the district court abuses its discretion, “we reverse only if the exclusion of eviden ce was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Generally, “evidence showing that the accused has committed another crime unrelated to the crime for which he or she is on trial is inadmissible because it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another.” 8 (Minn. 1997).

d 902, 906-07 (Minn. 1997).

Before a prior consistent statement is admissible as non-hearsay evidence, “the witness’ credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.” d 902, 909 (Minn. 1997) .

801(d)(1)(B); –09 (Minn. 1997).