Cited by

State v. Ness , (citation omitted).

404(b); 685 (Minn. 2006).

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

But other-crimes evidence, or Spreigl evidence, may be admissible to prove “motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan.” see also id.

404(b)(1); State v. Ness

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

There is a danger in admitting evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts because “the jury may convict because of those other crimes or misconduct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.”

5 evidence is generally inadmissible because “ the jury may convict because of those other crimes or misconduct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.”

11 charged crime is proved.”

rial,' " we are required to apply a constitutional test to the erroneous admission of prior bad acts evidence (quoting State v. Fardan , , 315 (Minn. 2009) )); see also Fardan , d at 320 n.9 (stating that we are not required to apply "the surely unattributable test to an erroneous admission of Spriegl evidence that does not involve a constitutional error"); State v. Ness , , 691 (Minn. 2006) ("When the district court has erroneously admitted other-acts evidence, this court must determine whether

404(b) ; State v. Ness , , 685 (Minn. 2006).

Id.; see also State v. Ness , -86 (Minn. 2006).

5 State v. Ness , -86 (Minn. 2006); see Minn. R. Evid.

Id.; see also State v. Ness , –86 (Minn. 2006).

State v. Ness , -86 (Minn. 13 2006).

State v. Ness , , 686 (Minn. 2006).

The appellant “bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.” (quotation omitted).

The general concern with admitting Spreigl evidence is that the jury might use the evidence for an improper purpose, “such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the [charged] crime.” State v. Ness , d 676, 685 (Minn. 2006).

The “general exclusionary rule is grounded in the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 495, ).

404(b); -86 (Minn. 2006).

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

Erroneous admission of other-acts evidence cons titutes reversible error only if there is a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully ad mitted evidence significa ntly affected the verdict.”

See State v. McLeod , 16 –88 (Minn. 2005); –86 (Minn. 2006) (requiring district court to undertake five -step process in admitting Spreigl evidence).

6 (Spreigl2 evidence); (relationship evidence), review denied (Minn. Oct.

ther purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,” but only if, among other things, “the prosecutor clearly 6 indicates what the evidence will be offered to prove” and “the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant.” Id.; –86 (Minn. 2006).