BROADCASTS.com

b'In 1992, appellant Edward Martin was convicted in California of sexual batterAppellant Ronnie Bila Shaka was charged with violating a domestic abuse no-contact order that prohibited him from having contact with his wife. When Shaka\\u2019s wife failed to appear for the jury trial, the State moved to admit her out-of-court statements to a law enforcement officer regarding Shaka\\u2019s contact with her, arguing that the statements were admissible under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause. In support of its motion, the State submitted recordings of telephone calls Shaka made while in jail awaiting trial. The district court granted the State\\u2019s motion and the jury found Shaka guilty. The court of appeals affirmed Shaka\\u2019s conviction.\\n\\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the State established that Shaka forfeited his right to confront his wife. (Hennepin County)y. Martin eventually moved to Minnesota. In 2005, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) informed Martin that he was required to register for life as a predatory offender in Minnesota because of his California conviction. In August 2016, Martin registered with the BCA as homeless. In February 2017, respondent the State of Minnesota charged Martin with failing to register as a predatory offender between August 19, 2016, and September 28, 2016. The State alleged that Martin had failed to comply with a requirement to check in with law enforcement on a weekly basis. See Minn. Stat. \\xa7 243.166, subd. 3a(e) (2018).\\n\\nAfter a court trial based on stipulated evidence, the district court found Martin guilty. The court of appeals affirmed Martin\\u2019s conviction.\\n\\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the State proved that Martin was required to register as a predatory offender between August 19, 2016, and September 28, 2016. (Hennepin County)'