Cited by

n.1 (Minn. 2005) () (other citation omitted).

When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show not only error but also “that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

1 When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show not only error but also “that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

404(b)(1); n.1 (Minn. 2005).

n.1 (Minn. 2005) () (other citation omitted).

n.1 (Minn. 2005) () (other citation omitted).

For the state to obtain pretrial relief under this framework, it “must show clearly and unequivocally that (1) the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

n.1 (Minn. 2005) () (other citation omitted).

The state can 4 show critical impact when “excluding the evidence completely destroys the state’s case” or “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (quotation omitted).

The state must prove that (1) the pretrial order “will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case” and (2) “the ruling was erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

We refer to evidence offered under one of the rule 404(b) exception s as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

Accordingly, to obtain pretrial relief, the state “must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotations omitted).

DECISION “When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotations omitted).

DECISION “When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

Before an appellate court will review the merits of a pretrial order, however, the state must make a clear and unequivocal threshold showing that the appealed order “will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” d 412, 416 (Minn. 1998).

A challenged ruling has a critical impact if it “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” n.1 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

A challenged ruling has a critical impact 3 if it “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

(noting Spreigl evidence encompasses bad acts in general; “the prior bad act need not constitute a crime”).

Evidence offered under one of the rule 404(b) exceptions is commonly referred to as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

It may accept part and reject part of a witness’s 1 When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show not only error but also “that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

Because suppression of this evidence “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution,” (), we agree that the critical impact requirement has been met here.

To obtain appellate review of a pretrial order, the state must show that, unless the district court’s ruling is reversed, it will have a “c ritical impact on [the state’s] ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

In order to prevail on a pretrial appeal, the prosecution “must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the district court’s ruling was erroneous and (2) that the ruling will have a ‘critical impact’ on the State’s ability to prosecute the case.” State v. Underdahl , ().

The state can make this showing when suppression of evidence “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” ().

The state can satisfy the critical -impact standard if the challenged ruling either “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

Critical impact is shown when suppression of the evidence “completely destroys the state’s case” or “when excluding the evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (quotation omitted).

State v. McLeod , -88 (Minn. 2005).

The state can satisfy the critical -impact standard if the challenged ruling either “‘completely destroys’ the state’s case” or “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

2; -86 (Minn. 2016); State v. McLeod

The critical-impact test “is intended to be a demanding standard” and requires the state to show that the ruling “‘significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” State v. Rambahal , ().

’” State v. McLeod , ().

3 When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show not only error but also “that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” State v. McLeod , (quotation omitted).

To determine critical impact, this court examines “all of the state’s admissible evidence as a whole.” d 776, 785 (Minn. 2005).

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

To establish critical impact, the state need not show that the pretrial ruling “completely destroys” the state’s case, but it is sufficient that it “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” State v. McLeod , (M inn.

(stating that the evidence suggested “a pattern of conduct or design that continued with [the victim] and is arguably sexual in nature”) .