State v. Willis, 898 N.W.2d 642

Defendant Berry Alan Willis was convicted of aggravated forgery; at sentencing the court reserved restitution and later ordered restitution after a post‑sentencing hearing under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b).
Willis requested a restitution hearing to challenge the amount; at that hearing the State offered documents and emails to prove victims’ losses, and Willis objected on hearsay/evidentiary grounds.
The district court overruled Willis’s objections, admitting the challenged exhibits on the ground that the Rules of Evidence did not strictly apply to restitution hearings.
The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning restitution is part of sentencing and Minn. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3) exempts sentencing from the Rules of Evidence.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Minn. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3) excludes restitution hearings from the Rules of Evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding the Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings under § 611A.045, subd. 3(b), because those hearings are not among the miscellaneous proceedings expressly excluded by Rule 1101(b)(3).

Issue	Willis’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Minn. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3) excludes restitution hearings from the Minnesota Rules of Evidence	Restitution hearings are not listed in Rule 1101(b)(3); they are fact‑finding hearings under § 611A.045 and thus the Rules of Evidence apply	Restitution is part of sentencing, and Rule 1101(b)(3) exempts sentencing, so restitution hearings fall outside the Rules of Evidence	The Rules of Evidence apply to restitution hearings because Rule 1101(b)(3) does not expressly exclude them; restitution hearings are fact‑finding proceedings distinct from the sentencing pronouncement

State v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 879 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 2016) (defined “sentencing” for Rule 1101(b)(3) as the proceeding where the judge hears sentencing arguments and pronounces sentence)
State v. Rodriguez, 754 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. 2008) (held Rules of Evidence apply to Blakely-type sentencing trials because such trials were not listed in Rule 1101(b)(3))
State v. Borg, 834 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. 2013) (recognized restitution as part of a defendant’s sentence for appeal‑timeliness purposes)
State v. Stone, 784 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 2010) (standard: interpret evidentiary‑rule language de novo)
State v. Dahlin, 753 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2008) (words and phrases in procedural rules are construed according to common usage)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (distinguishes sentencing trials that find aggravating facts from ordinary sentencing hearings)