Cited by

assist[ed] the jury in assessing witness credibility.” See Matthews, d at 549 (quotation omitted); see 10 also State v. Lindsey , (determining the relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See McCoy, d at 161 (affirming admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing context with which 10 it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (recognizing “significant probative value” of relationship evidence “in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

-57 (Minn. App. 2008) (affirming the admission of relationship evidence and explaining that a limiting instruction “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Relationship evidence has “significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(affirming the admission of relationship evidence that “assisted the jury by providing a context with which it could better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship”); (deciding that the relationship evidence in that case “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See, Andersen, d at 441-42; State v. Lindsey , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(deciding that the relationship evidence in that case “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

First, Fernandez Sorto’s interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 634.20 is unreasonably narrow and inconsistent with our authorities stating that the probative value of relationship evidence is “bolstered” when it “helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

place[] the event[s] in context.” -57 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (defining relationship evidence as “[e]vidence of domestic conduct” including evidence of domestic abuse, “by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, or against other family or household members”) ; (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See, (determining that relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Relationship evidence has probative value if it “helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant” or “places the event in context.” State v. Lindsey , rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(determining that evidence that the defendant twice violated an order for protection was “probative of a material fact, namely the history of [the defendant and victim’s] relationship”); -57 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that evidence establishing the relationship between the victim and the defendant has probative value), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that relationship evidence “had significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

ant], and the times that [the defendant] attempted to manipulate, control, and restrain her.” d 635, 641 (Minn. 2006) (determining that evidence that the defendant twice violated an order for protection was “probative of a material fact, namely the history of [the defendant and victim’s] relationship”); State v. Lindsey , (stating that evidence establishing the relationship between the victim and the defendant has probative value).

(“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

A district court’s limiting instruction “lessen[s] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

with Vanengen and what Vanengen should have known to be acceptable, consensual contact.4 (“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(Spreigl evidence); ( relationship evidence), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” State v. Lindsey , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

State v. Lindsey , , review denied (Minn. Oct.

“A court interprets a statute to discern legislative intent.” State v. Lindsey , review denied (Minn. Oct.

” d 752, 756 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct.

See, review denied (Minn. Oct.

See, -41 (Minn. App. 2017) ( upholding admission of victim’s testimony about strangulation assault the day following the offense as relationship evidence) ; State v. Lindsay , d 752, 756 (Minn. App. 2008) (upholding admission of evidence of a defendant’s conduct more than a month after the charged offense because “[i]n the context of [the defendant’s] relationship with [the victim], evidence of [the defendant’s] later conduct had significant probative value .

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

The conduct underlying the stalking- and OFP-violation charges fits under the definition of domestic conduct.1 1 Moreover, the relationship evidence does not have to oc cur prior to the charged offense in order to be admissible, review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

Relationship evidence is probative if it assists the jury by providing context for the charged offense, review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

A limiting instruction from the district court “lessen[s] the probability of undue weight being g iven by the jury to the evidence.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.

State v. Lindsey , , 757 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.

provided a context in which to examine [the victim’s] credibility.” Id.; (noting that relationship evidence has “significant probative value in assisting the jury to judge witness credibility”).