See City of Moorhead v. Red River Valley Co-op. Power Ass’n, 830 N.W.2d 32, 39-40 (Minn.2013). An erroneous evidentiary ruling is prejudicial if it might reasonably have influenced the jury and changed the result’ of the trial. George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn.2006). For the reasons I have already discussed, I conclude that the error was prejudicial.' Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The court should have reversed and remanded the case to the court of appeals to decide the remaining issue on appeal: whether the motion for a new trial was timely. 1 . During the plea proceeding, both Liebsch and his attorney confirmed that they had "reviewed each and every paragraph” of the petition, and that the attorney had "read it out loud to you as w L 2869108 (D.Utah 2010) (<HOLDING>). 4 , Doe 136 did not appeal the district
holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible holding that double jeopardy precludes dual convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of separate ammunition because section 790231 florida statutes prohibits possession of  any firearm ammunition or electric weapon or device emphasis in original holding alford plea admissible in prosecution for felon in possession of firearm holding district court lacked discretion to permit defendant to stipulate to prior conviction in prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm holding alford plea admissible in burglary prosecution