Cited by

A defendant’s “challenge to the admissibility of the section 634.20 evidence on the ground that it was not needed to strengthen the state’s case fails” because “the need for section 634.20 evidence is naturally considered as part of the assessment of the probative value versus prejudicial effect of the evidence.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “a separate analysis of need” is not required to admit evidence under section 634.20).

This court rejected a - 49 (Minn. App. 2008 ).

Relationship evidence under section 634.20 serves as a legislatively created exception to this general rule and “is offered to demonstrate the history of the relationship between the accused and the victim of domestic abuse.”

“Evidence is admissible under se ction 634.20 if (1) it is simi lar conduct by the accused, (2) it is perpetuated against the victim of do mestic abuse or against another family or household member, and (3) the probative valu e of the evidence is not substantially 9 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” State v. Meyer , (quotation omitted).

Relationship evidence “is offered to demonstrate the history of the relationship between the accused and the victim of domestic abuse.”

d 844, 849 (Minn. App. 2008), the victim’s credibility was at issue, and the appellant asserted 8 that the domestic-conduct evidence led the jury to find him guilty based on past conduct rather than on evidence of the current charged offenses.

“[U]nfair prejudice is not merely damaging evidence, nor is it severely damaging evidence.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Meyer , (prior acts of domestic violence probative of relationship history and provided context to analyze witness’s credibility).

The state’s need for the evidence is considered “as part of the assessment of [its] probative value versus [its] prejudicial effect.” State v. Meyer , (quotation omitted).

Consequently, “the stringent procedural requirements” associated with Spreigl evidence “do not apply to section 634.20 [relationship] evidence.”

1 Such evidence is relevant because it assists in illuminating the history of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and it may also help to prove motive or help the jury to assess witness credibility.

See, e.g., McCoy, d at 161 (recognizing that relationship evidence “assist[s] the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (“Minnesota courts have recognized the inherent probative value of evidence of past acts of violence committed .

(“Minnesota courts have recognized the inherent probative value of evidence of past acts of violence committed, as here, by the same defendant against the same victim.”).

domestic abuse or against another family or household member, and (3) the probative value of the evidence is not “substantially 4 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Id.