Standards of Review

Standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence

Standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence

Contrary to what a portion of the public believes, circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be used to prove a party’s case.  When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for a conviction, a reviewing court will engage in a two-part analysis in addressing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.  The components of this analysis were reviewed recently by the Minnesota Supreme Court, State v. Hurd, A11-1057 (Minn. August 8,...

Read More

Standard of review for evidentiary rulings

Standard of review for evidentiary rulings

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.  State v. Edwards, 485 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. 1992).  In order to warrant reversal, however, any error must have affected the substantial rights of the party claiming error. This is what is referred to as the harmless error rule.  The harmless error rule is embodied in Rule 103(a), which states: “[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes...

Read More