Cited by

(“[T]he questions and arguments of attorneys are not evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

d 153, 158 (Minn. 2004) ( stating attorneys’ arguments “ are not ev idence”).

is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair preju dice”); State v. McCoy , (stating that relationship evidence “illuminate[s] the history of the relationship” between the accused and the alleged victim, “that is, [it] put[s] the crime charged in the context of the relations hip between the two”).

Relationship evidence “assist[s] the jury by providing a context with which it [can] better judge the credibility of the principals in the relationship.”

(noting that “arguments of attorneys are not evidence”) (quotation omitted); see also Tang v. I.N.S., 223 F.3d 713, 720 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that factual assertions in a brief were “argument of counsel and not evidence”).

d 153, 161 (Minn. 2004).

State v. McCoy , (reviewing admission of relationship evidence under Minn. Stat. § 634.20); Hormann, d at 888 (reviewing admission of relationship evidence under Minnesota caselaw).

20 as authorizing the admission of prior acts of domestic abuse for the purpose of “illuminat[ing] the history of relationship” between the defendant and the victim, and putting the allege d act of violence in “the context of the relationship between the two.”

and argues that his conduct does not constitute relationship evid ence and has no probative value because he did not assert any control over A.S., and A.S.

(relationship evidence is used “to illuminate the history of the relationship” between a victim and the accused and provide context for crime).

Relationship evidence is used to “illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime char ged in the context of the re lationship between the two.”

Relationship evidence “may be offered to illuminate the history of the relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.”

161 (Minn. 2004) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting 8 relationship evidence where the probative value of the evidence was not substanti ally outweighed by the danger of its unfair prejudice).

“[E]vi dence of prior [domestic] conduct between the accused and the alleged victim” may “put the crime charged in the context of [their] relationship,” State 8 v. McCoy, and may bolster its probative value

20 in order “to illuminate the relationship between the defendant and the alleged victim and to put the alleged crime in the context of that relationship.” Minn. Stat. § 634.20; (citing State v. McCoy , 9 (Minn. 2004)), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(upholding a legislatively created rule of evidence).

“[E]vidence of prior [domestic] conduct between the accused and the alleged victim” may put “the crime charged in the context of [their] relationship,” and may bolster its probative value.

See Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014)

State v. McCoy , (expressly extending the application of section 634.20 as a rule of evidence to domestic conduct against fam ily or household members).

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2014)

This evidence, known as “relationship evidence,” is distinct from rule 404(b) bad-acts evidence because it evinces “prior conduct between the accused and the alleged victim and it may be offered to illuminate the history of the 3 relationship, that is, to put the crime charged in the context of the relationship between the two.”