Cited by

The overarching concern associated with the admission of Spreigl evidence is that “it might be used for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.”

(“In cases such as this one, sexual or aggressive intent can readily be inferred from the contacts themselves; here, there 7 could be no other reason for [defendant] to touch [alleged victim’s] intimate parts.”).

However, this evidence is admissible to show “motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan.”

6 (Minn. 2006) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it “determined that [Spreigl victim’s] testimony was credible ” and thus that defendant’s participation in the incidents was “clear and convincing”); Kennedy, d at 390 (“In fact, [the Minnesota Supreme Court] has on num

(laying out a balancing test for remote prior bad act evidence).

6 Appellate courts “review[] the district court’s decision to admit Spreigl evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

(distinguishing motive from intent, noting that “motive concerns external facts that create a desire in someone to do something, whereas intent is a state of mind in which an act is done consciously, with purpose”).

Under Spreigl, the district court must “isolate[e] the consequential fact for which the evidence is offered, and then determin[e] the relationship of the offered evidence to that fact and the relationship of the consequential fact to the disputed issues in the case.”

The principal concern with the admission of Spreigl evidence is that “it might be used for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.”

whether the state has “clearly indicate[d] what the evidence will be offered to prove”; (3) whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated in the prior act”; (4) whether the evidence is “relevant and material to the state’s case”; and (5) whether the probative value of the evidence is “outweighed by its potential prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Ness , - 86 (Minn. 2006).

State v. Ness , -86 (Minn. 2006).

“The danger in admitting such evidence is that the jury may convict because of those other 14 crimes or misconduct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.”

10 Generally, “[e]vidence of other crimes, wr ongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” State v. Ness , (citing Minn. R. Evid.

The principal concern with the admission of Spreigl evidence is that “it might be used for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.”

The supreme court has held that, if a district court has erroneously admitted Spreigl evidence, an appellate court “must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

d 676, 687 (Minn. 2006).

The principal concern with the admission of Spreigl evidence is that “it might be used for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.”

State v. Ness , State v. Spreigl , d 167, 172 (Minn. 1965).

But the evidence may be admissible for another purpose, includi ng “showing motive, intent, k nowledge, identity , absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan.” 1 Hudson also pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession-of-a -firearm charge for which the district court imposed a concurrent 60-month sentence.

But the eviden ce may be admissible for another purpose, including “showing motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan.” (M inn.

- 86 (Minn. 2006); Minn. R. Evid.

The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”

“The use of Spreigl evidence to show a common scheme or plan has been endorsed repeatedly, despite the particular risk it poses for unfair prejudice.”

conceived design of any sort animating [appellant]’s conduct.” The district court also found that “[appellant] appear[ed] to have acted impulsively during each incident.” But the district court went on to state that “the existence of an actual plan is not the only basis upon which evidence of prior sexual abuse may be admitted under Rule 404(b).” The district court, –88 (Minn. 2006), concluded that rule 404(b) “embraces evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus oper

(citing State v. Spreigl , ).

(stating that specific sexual or aggressive intent can be inferred from an individual’s acts themselves when there is no other reason for an individual to commit those acts); State v. Raymond , (“Intent is an inference drawn by the jury from the totality of circums