Cited by

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

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.”

“Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -07 (Minn. 1997).

“Rulings on evidentiary matters r est within the sound discretio n of the trial court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse a trial court’s evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” -07 (Minn. 1997).

(citing Wofford , d at 272).

“Reversal is warranted only when the error substantially influe nces the jury’s decision.” State v. Nunn

“Before the statement can be admitted, the witness’s credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’s credibility with respect to that aspect of th e witness’s credib ility that was challenged.” State v. Nunn

“Before the 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 witne ss’ credibility that was challenged.”

See Amos, d at 203; s ee also State v. Nunn , (stating that, “[r]eversal is warranted only when the error substantially influences the jury’s decision”).

“[B]efore the statement can be admitted, the witness ’ credibility must have been chall enged, and the statement must bolster the witness ’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness ’ credibility that was challenged.”

Prior to admission “‘the witness’[s] credibility must have been challenged, and the statement must bolster the witness’[s] credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’[s] credibility that was challenged.’” ().

(-09 (Minn. 1997)), review denied (Minn. Feb.

at 109 (-09 (Minn. 1997)).

“On appeal, the defendant has the burden of proving both that the [district] court abused its discretion in admitting the 4 evidence and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.” d 902, 907 (Minn. 1997).

’s testimony and helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness.” An out-of-court statement is helpful to the trier of fact to evaluate the witness’ credibility when, the witness’ credibility has been challenged, and the statement bolsters “the witness’ credibility with respect to that aspect of the witness’ credibility that was challenged.”

at 109 (–09 (Minn. 1997)).

But, appellant has not met his burden of showing that this evidence “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”

The erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal unless “the error substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”

The erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal unless the error “substantially influence[d] the jury’s decision.”

at 109; -09 (Minn. 1997) (holding that “before the statement can be admitted, the witness’ credibility must have been challenged”).