A10-0731        State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Emmanuel Davis, Appellant.

Hennepin County.
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