the Erickson framework if there was some evidence suggesting contact with the jury outside the scope of the agreement. If Martin had met that burden of showing such a contact, a presumption of prejudice would arise and the burden would shift to the state to overcome the presumption of prejudice. Id. The reconstructed record (based on two separate evidentiary hearings) leads us to conclude that Martin has not met his burden of producing evidence suggesting that there was a contact with the jury that fell outside the scope of the agreement such that he would be entitled to a presumption of prejudice. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, Judge Olson did not personally talk to the jurors or enter the jury room while the jury was deliberating. Cf. Brown, 682 N.W.2d at 167-68 (<HOLDING>). Second, the minutes indicate that the judge’s
holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error recognizing appellate remedy inadequate when trial courts abuse of discretion constituted automatic reversible error holding exclusion of defendants nephews prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error holding that the defendants entry into the foyer of a fraternity house was an entry into a dwelling holding that where the final judgment provided relief that was not requested  its entry constituted reversible error