Cited by

7 To demonstrate a common plan under rule 404(b), Spreigl evidence must “have a marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.” d 676, 688 (Minn. 2006) (considering the appellant’s common plan or scheme to commit criminal sexual conduct).

“The danger in admitting such evidence is that the jury may convict because of those other crimes or misconduct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.” State v. 10 Ness

To protect a “defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial,” Minnesota courts have generally excluded “evidence connecting a defendant with other crimes, except for purposes of impeachment.” (quotation omitted).

to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith”) ; (stating evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, often referred to as Spreigl evidence).

1 The supreme court has recognized that Spreigl evidence may be relevant and material in a case concerning criminal sexual conduct against a child on the ground that such evidence may be used to “establish common scheme or plan, i.e., to establish that the act occurred.”

-86 (Minn. 2006); d 167, 168 (Minn. 1965) (holding that the state must, “within a reasonable time before trial,” provide “in writing a statement of the offenses it intends to show [a defendant] has committed”).

“[T]he closer the relationship between the other acts and the charged offense, in terms of time, place, or modus operandi, the greater the relevance and probative value of the other-acts evidence and the lesser the likelihood that the evidence will be used for an improper purpose.”

“A defendant who claims the district court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.”

Evidence that a defendant committed a prior act “may be considered clear and convincing when it is highly probable that the facts sought to be admitted are truthful.”

29 prejudice the factfinder.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.

(Minn. 2 Evidence of a person’s other crimes, wrongs , or acts is often called Spreigl evidence.

“A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.” (quotation omitted).

“If the admission of evidence of other crimes or misconduct is a close call, it should be excluded.”

(determining that probative value of Spreigl evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice because it was not relevant or needed to strengthen an element of the charged offense).

(concluding that “sexual or aggressive intent can be readily inferred from the contacts themselves; here there could be no other reason for [appellant to touch the complainant]”); Vick, d at 691 (noting that the nature of touching a child’s buttocks and other intimate parts for a prolong

To determine whether Spreigl evidence is relevant, a district court generally should consider, among other things, “whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.” , 305 (Minn. 1984)

In determining whether Spreigl evidence is relevant and material, a court must “identify the precise disputed fact to which the Spreigl evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).

Relevance In determining whether the relevance requirement for admission is met, “the district court must identify the precise disputed fact to which the Spreigl evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).

403 (providing that relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”); (stating that in determining whether to admit prior -acts evidence, courts should consider whether the probative value is outweighed by the potential prejudice to the defendant).

8 A For Spreigl evidence to be relevant, the “general rule” is that a bad act must be “sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense—determined by time, place, and modus operandi.” (quotation and emphasis omitted).

(stating that courts should address the need for Spreigl evidence in the context of balancing the probative value of the evidence 10 against its potential for unfair prejudice).

We review “the district court’s decision to admit Spreigl evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

We will not reverse a conviction unless the error creates “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

“[A] showing of sexual intent does not require direct evidence of the defendant’s desires or gratification because a subjective sexual intent typically must be inferred from the nature of the conduct itself.” Id.; (concluding that “[s]exual or aggressive intent [could] readily be inferred from the contacts themselves” when state proved that defendant touched victim’s intimate parts and “there could be no other reason” for defendant to do so).

This established “exclusionary rule is grounded in the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” (citing Spreigl, d at 171).

“[T]he closer the relationship between the other acts and the charged offense, in terms of time, place, or modus operandi, the greater the relevance and probative value of the other-acts evidence and the lesser the likelihood that the evidence will be used for an improper purpose.”

404(b); - 88 (Minn. 2006).

404(b)(1); (referring to evidence of other crimes or bad acts as “Spreigl evidence,” ).

To obtain reversal of a conviction based on the erroneous admission of other-acts evidence, a defendant must “demonstrate that the erroneous admission of evidence created ‘a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.’” Riddley, d at 427 ().