Cited by

Evidence of Hector’s prior bad acts are what we commonly refer to as “reverse-Spreigl evidence.” ().

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

“It is a violation of the defendant’s right to due process for a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s failure to cons ent to a warrantless search.” d 677, 687 (Minn. 2008) ( Jones II); n.3 (Minn. 2004) (Jones I) (“A passive refusal to consent to a search cannot be treated as evidence of a crime.”).

Even if the above three prongs are met, this court will correct the error “only if the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding is seriously affected.”

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

741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)); (“[W]e give ‘great deference to the issuing judge’s determination’ of probable cause for a search warrant.” ()); Rochefort, d at 804 (same); (“[T]he resolution, of doubtful or marginal cases should be ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.’ ” (quoting Wiley, d at 268 )).

See Jones, d at 684-85; -11 (Minn. 2004).

“Alternative perpetrator evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to 14 connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime.” (citations omitted).

“[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.”

“[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.”

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

“[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.”

“[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.”

“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to 6 create sufficient probable cause.”

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

As an example of *843 a “widely accepted” evidentiary rule

would any other exculpatory evidence.”

proving its inherent tendency to connect the alleged alternative perpetrator to the commission of the crime, “ ‘it is permissible to introduce evidence of a motive of the third person to commit the crime, threats by the third person, or other miscellaneous facts which would tend to prove the third person committed the act,’ in order to cast a reasonable doubt on the state’s case.” ().