ANDERSON, Justice.Appellant Brian Keith Hooper appeals the postconviction court's summary denial of his fourth petition for postconviction relief. SeeState v. Hooper (Hooper I ), 620 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 2000) ; State v. Hooper (Hooper II ), 680 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2004) ; State v. Hooper (Hooper III ), 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013).

See Hooper v. State ( Hooper II ), 680 N.W.2d 89 (Minn.2004); State v. Hooper ( Hooper I ), 620 N.W.2d 31 (Minn.2000). The present appeal involves Hooper's third petition for postconviction relief, in which Hooper alleges that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that: (1) he is innocent; (2) the trial judge's law clerk improperly dissuaded a defense witness from testifying at Hooper's trial; (3) the State withheld important evidence from him; and (4) three trial witnesses have recanted their testimony.

Hooper's direct appeal was stayed to allow him to seek postconviction relief based on his claim of newly discovered evidence. After Hooper was denied postconviction relief, this court reinstated Hooper's direct appeal and affirmed both his conviction and the postconviction court's denial of relief.State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 40-41 (Minn. 2000). The facts of the underlying conviction are set forth in detail in the court's opinion in State v. Hooper, and will be referenced in this opinion only as necessary to aid in the resolution of the issues presented in this appeal.

All it is required to do is to "restore confidence in the accomplice's testimony" in a way that suggests the defendant's guilt. State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Minn. 2000). Thus, corroborating evidence may take the form of "evidence of the accused's relationship with the accomplice," evidence of "opportunity and motive," and evidence of a defendant's "proximity to the place where the crime was committed."

Corroborative evidence must restore confidence in an accomplice's testimony, confirming its veracity and indicating the defendant's guilt in a substantial way. State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Minn. 2000); State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 727 (Minn. 2000) ("Corroborating evidence * * * may be direct or circumstantial [and] need not establish a prima facie case of the defendant's guilt * * *."

We will not reverse evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 38 (Minn.2000). The defendant has the burden on appeal of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion when it made the evidentiary ruling and that the defendant was thereby prejudiced.

The first question presented by this case is whether the postconviction court abused its discretion when it concluded that King's out-of-court statements to D.H. and S.R. were inadmissible hearsay. We review a postconviction court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 38 (Minn.2000), and we review the postconviction court's findings to determine if they are supported by sufficient evidence, Ferguson, 779 N.W.2d at 559. Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, an out-of-court statement made by a nonparty and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is usually inadmissible hearsay. Minn. R. Evid. 801(c), (d), 802.

The first question presented by this case is whether the postconviction court abused its discretion when it concluded that King's out-of-court statements to D.H. and S.R. were inadmissible hearsay. We review a postconviction court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 38 (Minn. 2000), and we review the postconviction court's findings to determine if they are supported by sufficient evidence, Ferguson, 779 N.W.2d at 559. Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, an out-of-court statement made by a nonparty and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is usually inadmissible hearsay. Minn. R. Evid. 801(c), (d), 802.

State v. Hall, 764 N.W.2d 837, 841 (Minn. 2009) (quoting State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 38 (Minn. 2000)). Larson has the burden to show that the district court erred and that he suffered prejudice as a result of the evidentiary error.

"Corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of an accomplice must be `weighty enough to restore confidence in the accomplice's testimony, confirming its truth and pointing to the defendant's guilt in some substantial way.'" State v. Hooper, 620 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Minn. 2000) (quoting State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 66-67 (Minn. 1988)).