Cited by

1 “Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the state can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” accord Minn. R. Evid.

In evaluating a witness’s credibility, a jury may consider the witness’s “interest and past inconsistent statements.” d at 101, 108 (Minn. 1989); see also State v. Asfeld, 14 (explaining that in deference to the jury’s “role as evaluator of witness credibility,” the court was required to assume “the jury disbelieved Asfeld’s claim that he did not murder [the victim]”).

Appellate courts “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the basis of mere conjecture.” (quotation omitted).

KS maintained that she did not want her younger cousins to 1 “Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the state can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” accord Minn. R. Evid.

purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” accord Minn. R. Evid.

2 “Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the state can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” accord Minn. R. Evid.

at 241; see also Ness, d at 688; -56 (Minn. 1978).

2 “Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the state can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” see Minn. R. Evid.

“Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts[.]”

He simply claimed that the Spreigl evidence was 9 “Spreigl evidence is evidence of a defendant's prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the state can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan.”

(describing the five -prong analysis for Spreigl determinations).

404(b) ; State v. Asfeld , , 542 (Minn. 2003) (defining Spreigl evidence as "evidence of a defendant's prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, which would otherwise be inadmissible, but which the [S]tate can seek to have admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan").

Cf. State v. Asfeld , (rejecting ineffective -assistance-of- counsel claim where counsel did not object to properly admitted evidence).

A reviewing court “assume[s] that the jury disbelieved any 7 testimony in conflict with the result it reached.” State v. Asfeld , (quotation and emphasis omitted).

In any event, “a new trial is not required unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“[A] new trial is not required unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant is not entitled to a new trial for erroneously admitted evidence “unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

In any event, “a new trial is not required unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully-admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant is not entitled to a new trial for erroneously admitted evidence “unless there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

But competing hypotheses must be based on more than mere “conjecture” or “possibilities of innocence.” (quotations omitted).

("With the domestic abuse murder statute, the legislature sought to penalize the repeat abuser who engages in a history of serial acts of violence against those with whom he lives....

In State v. As-feld, the supreme court held that the phrase “family or household” in section 609.185 unambiguously means the accused’s family or household, not the victim’s. -42 (Minn. 2003).

see also Race, d at 662 (finding that circumstantial evidence, even though conflicting, was sufficient to support conviction).

We must consider whether “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” ( and citing cases indicating that this standard applies where the error does not affect a defendant’s constitutional rights).

2(b)(4); (court interpreting statute is bound to give effect to clear language of statute).