State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that testimony challenged under the Confrontation Clause was not reasonably likely to have substantially affected the verdict in light of other evidence on the same subject and other evidence of guilt
• stating that an erroneous admission of Spreigl evidence is harmless unless the error substantially influenced the verdict
• providing that “we will not consider a challenge to the admission of evidence unless a timely objection . . . appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context” (quotation omitted)
• noting defendant’s “exclusive focus” on specific hearsay exception in district court and stating that defendant failed to preserve for appeal related challenge under Confrontation Clause
• noting prior incidents involving the defendant and complainant can help provide necessary background and context to the development of an ongoing conflict that assists the jury in understanding the charged offense
• applying only third prong of plain-error test to deny defendant’s constitutional claim, stating that it was unnecessary to consider whether there was plain error when any violation did not affect defendant’s substantial rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).