A10-0731 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Emmanuel Davis, Appellant.
1. Even if the district court abused its discretion by admitting appellant’s custodial statement, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The district court did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of a witness’s fear and failing to sua sponte give a cautionary instruction.
3. The district court did not err by declining to admit certain hearsay statements.
4. The district court did not commit plain error in giving a no-adverse-inference instruction without appellant’s clear consent because the error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights.
5. The cumulative effect of the district court’s errors does not entitle appellant to a new trial.
6. The issues raised in appellant’s supplemental pro se briefs lack merit.
Affirmed. Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea.
By: Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533