Cited by

To determine whether Spreigl evidence is relevant, a district court generally should consider, among other things, “whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.” see also Ness, d at 688.

To determine whether Spreigl evidence is relevant, a district court generally should consider, among other things, “whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.” , 305 (Minn. 1984)

See, –39 (Minn. 2004) (citing Ani’s possibility statement but affirming the conviction based only on victim’s uncorroborated testimony); (citing the Ani statement, noting the presence of corroborating evidence, and concluding, “this is not such a case”); (affirming conviction based on corroborated testimony); –40 (Minn. 1983) (same); (same); (same); –95 (Minn. 1982) (sam

mean[s] a situation in which a complainant has been physically attacked or has emerged from the incident so shaken or traumatized that no reasonable person would believe the complainant desired that particular sexual contact.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Although the evidence was not initially admitted to prove lack of consent but rather the identity of A.D.’s attacker, the supreme court has recognized that, if the victim’s consent is at issue in a sexual-assault case, “other-crime evidence show[ing] a pattern of similar aggressive sexual behavior by defendant against other women in the community” is “highly relevant,” and Buckles ultimately testified that he had consensual sex with A.D.

To determine whether Spreigl evidence is relevant, a district court “should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.”

See State v. DeBaere , (holding that similarit ies in “aggressive sexual behavior” between prior attempted sexual assaults and actual sexual assault rendered rule 404(b) e vidence admissible).

See S (stating that where a defendant asserts a consent defense in a sexual-assault case, “other-crime evidence show[ing] a pattern of similar aggressive sexual behavior by defendant against other women in the community .

See Clark, d at 316 (stating that, in sexual-assault prosecutions, Spreigl evidence may be introduced to establish, “by showing a common scheme or plan ,” that the sexual act occurred); d 301, 305 (Minn. 1984) (recognizing that Spreigl evidence may be “relevant to the issue of consent”).

Further, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that Spreigl evidence is admissible and “highly relevant to the issue of consent” in a cr iminal sexual conduct case when the evidence “showed a pattern of similar aggressive se xual behavior by [the] defendan t against other women in the community.”

Where the issue is a victim’s consent in a sexual-assault case, “other-crime evidence show[ing] a pattern of similar aggressive sexual behavior by defendant against other women in the community” is “highly relevant.”

(noting that a complainant’s prompt police report and “distraught condition” in talking with police was corroborative of sexual assault).

(finding that injury to complainant was proof of her nonconsent).

(finding that injury to complainant was proof of her nonconsent).

To determine the relevance of such evidence, a district court should consider “the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or mo-dus operandi.”

“In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, ‘the trial court should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.’ ” ().

In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, “the trial court should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operands”

(evidence of other assaultive behavior admissible where defendant claimed self-defense and intoxication); (evidence of other sexually assaultive behavior admissible where defendant claimed intercourse was consensual); pet.

-05 (Minn.1984) (pattern of sexually aggressive behavior was admissible where consent was the defense).

Further, appellant’s entry with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct “was inferable from the evidence of his assaultive conduct once inside.”

This court has held, for example, that a wife’s earlier threats against her husband, whom she later allegedly killed, were admissible to show intent and absence of mistake, State v. Diamond, 308 Minn. at 448 , d at 99 , and that a pattern of aggressive sexual behavior against women in the community by an accused rapist was admissible on the issue of consent