Cited by

Profit, d at 460-61; (addressing prior -acts evidence).

S uch evidence, however, “may be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,” if each of the following conditions are met: 9 Evidence of other crimes or acts is commonly referred to as “Spreigl evidence” after our supreme court’s

404(b)(1); State v. Spreigl , 10 (Minn. 1965).

Even if evidence qualifies as relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20, the statute still prohibits the admission of relationship evidence when “ the probative value is 1

Such evidence is commonly referred to as “Spreigl evidence.” see State v. Kennedy

Such evidence is commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence,” based on the supreme court’s

Nonetheless, the district court 1 In Minnesota, other-crimes evid ence is often referred to as Spreigl evidence, after the supreme court’s

Courts generally exclude evidence “connecting a defendant with other crimes.”

2 In Minnesota, courts often refer to other -crime evidence as Spreigl evidence after the supreme court’s decision in State v. Spreigl , disallowing the use of other-crime evidence except under certain circumstances.

(establishing notice requirement for other-bad-a cts evidence).

This evidence is referred to as “ Spreigl evidence” based on the supreme court’s

Wion argues that it was plain error for the prosecutor to present inadmissible evidence of his other bad acts, commonly referred to as Spreigl evidence.1 Spreigl 1

D E C I S I O N Evidence of other crimes or acts is commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence” after the supreme court’s decision in State v. Spreigl

The district court entered a conviction on count five—one of th e two remaining first-degree offenses—and did not enter convictions on the other first-degree offense or the absence of mistake, identity, or plan.” (); see also Minn. R. Evid.

-72 (Minn. 1965) (discussing the admission of evidence of prior crimes); (stating that Spreigl evidence is “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts”).

(explaining that evidence of a previous crime, wrongdoing or act, commonly known as Spreigl evidence, is generally inadmissible unless certain conditions are met).

Such evidence, called Spreigl evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488 , "may be admitted only for limited, specific purposes," including "showing motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan."

404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

As part of its case-in-chief, the state introduced other-acts evidence pursuant to rule 404(b) for the limited purpose of proving the absence of a mistake or accident.

N or do they suggest that 2

404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

Fardan, d at 315–16 (d 167, 171 (Minn. 1965)) .

(noting that evidence of Thieman making threats to victim offered to prove a propensity or disposition to co mmit murder is inadmissible, b ut holding that such evidence is admissible to show relationship between Thieman and victim).

A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing an error occurred and any resulting prejudice.” -62 (Minn. 2016) (citations omitted) ; see State v. Spreigl , d 167, 169 (Minn. 1965) (stating that other-acts evidence is generally inadmissible to prove that a defendant committed the present offense) .

Fardan, d at 315-16 (discussing State v. Spreigl , ).

404(b) ; State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488 , , 169 (1965).