Cited by

“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”

See Olson, d at 95; McCloskey, d at 703

In 2004, which involved a restitution request from an adult murder victim’s sister for lost wages and travel costs for attending the murderer’s trial.

(concluding individual’s refusal of consent to search cigarette packet in her sweatshirt pocket could not be considered in establishing probable cause for a search); n.3 (Minn. 2004) (stating “passive refusal to consent to a search cannot be treated as evidence of a crime” and that “refusal to consent to a search cannot establish probable cause”).

He also argues “the supreme court has made clear that a family member is not entitled to restitution that stems from her own emotional trauma following the defendant’s crime,” d 1, 24 (Minn. 2004).

“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.”

2 see also State v. Jones , (Jones I) (defining “reverse-Spreigl”).

A criminal defendant may present evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts committed by the alleged alternative perpetrator to “cast reasonable doubt upon 8 the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged crime.” State v. Jones , -17 (Minn. 2004).

disclosed was her brother, [A.L.], pinching her arm and bending her finger backward,” the officer ended the investigation.3 Foundation analysis To be admissible, alternative-perpetrator evidence must connect the alleged perpetrator to the offense charged against the defendant, which caselaw calls “an inherent tendency to connect the other party with the crime.”

The supreme court has interpreted the term “vic tim,” in the restitutio n context, to mean “the direct victim of the crime.”

In addition, “[w] e afford great deference to the issuing judge’s determination on probable cause.” State v. Jones

As a threshold limitation, the defendant must first “connect[] the alternative perpetrator to the charged crime.”

This is because “the existence of probable cause depends on all of the facts of each individual case.” State v. Williams , 11 (emphasis added); (“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”).

2 “Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to connect [an] alternative party with the commission of the crime.”

Under the second Hawkins step, a court considers whether the evidence in question is admissible under the “ordinary rules of evidence.” Jenkins, d at 224; see also State v. Jones , (explaining that the district court should evaluate reverse-Spreigl evidence of “prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts” by an alternative 8 perpetrator under the heightened clear and convincing admissibility standard, but noting that not all alternative-perpetrator evidence is reverse-Spreigl evidence

In reviewing a probable-cause determinati on, this court uses a “totality of the circumstances approach,” meaning that “a colle ction of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.” (quotation omitted).

However, when a defendant seeks to introduce exculpatory e vidence based on an alternative -perpetrator theory, the court “must still evaluate this evidence under the ordinary evidentiary rules as it would any other exculpatory evidence.”

19 Slutzker v. Johnson , 393 F.3d 373 (3rd Cir. 2004), which concerns the requirements for prosecutorial disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and a trio of cases concerning alternative- perpetrator evidence:

6 While each circumstance listed by Shivers, viewed in isolation, may be insufficient to establish probable cause, “a collection of pieces of informa tion that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cau se.” State v. Jones

See State v. Jones , 4 The two-prong test for admitting new scientific evidence is derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.

” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted).

While each circumstance, viewed in isolation, might be deficient, “a collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient pro bable cause.”

“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”

“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”

“The fair opportunity to defend against criminal charges is a right guaranteed by constitutional due process.” -16 (Minn. 2004).

A criminal defendant may “present evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts committed by the alleged alternative perpetrator in order to cast reasonable doubt upon the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged crime.”

A criminal defendant may “present evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts committed by the alleged alternative perpetrator in order to cast reasonable doubt upon the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged crime.”

State v. Jones , , 11 (Minn. 2004).

402 (providing that all relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided); n.8 (Minn. 2004).

If the victim is a natural person and is deceased, ‘victim’ means the deceased’s surviving spouse or next of kin.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b) (2002), (concerning whether the sister of a murder victim was entitled to restitution)".

If the victim is a natural person and is deceased, ‘victim’ means the deceased’s surviving spouse or next of kin.” Minn. Stat. § 611A.01(b) (2002), (concerning whether the sister of a murder victim was entitled to restitution) .

“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”