Cited by

1 The supreme court has recognized that Spreigl evidence may be relevant and material in a case concerning criminal sexual conduct against a child on the ground that such evidence may be used to “establish common scheme or plan, i.e., to establish that the act occurred.”

In support of this argument

Indeed, “[t]he intent of the defendant is usually readily inferable from the doing of the act—once one is convinced that the act took 13 place.” State v. Wermerskirchen , n.2 (Minn. 1993) (quoting 22 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure — Evidence § 5239 at 461–62 (1978)).

(concluding that Spreigl evidence was “highly relevant” when it “tended to disprove the defense that” the victim’s sexual-assault allegations were fabricated).

Although the Hennepin County offense took place nine months after the present offense, the supreme court has stated that “[t]he ultimate issue is not the temporal relationship but relevance.” d 235, 242 n.3 (Minn. 1993).

(concluding that 15-year-old incidents were inadmissible) -03 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that 16-year-old incidents were admissible); -98 (Minn. 1987) (concluding that 16- to 19-year-old incidents were admissible); - 43, 242 n.3 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that 19- year-old incidents were admissible); Blom, d at 617 (concluding that 16-year- old incidents were admissible).

which provides strong support for the introduction of Spreigl evidence in a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct against a child on the ground that such evidence 5 may be used to “establish common scheme or plan, i.e., to establish that the act occurre

Ness, d at 688; (determining that evidence of prior sexual abuse was admissible to rebut a fabrication defense where it “showed an ongoing pattern of opportunistic fondling of young girls within the family context”).

See McLeod, d at 785-87; -43 (Minn. 1993).

by the victim.” -42 (Minn. 1993).

” Ness, d at 688 (-42 (Minn. 1993)).

at 688; -42 (Minn. 1993) (recognizing the relevance of common-scheme evidence “to the specific issue of whether the conduct on which the charge was based actually occurred or was .

( affirming admission of Spreigl evidence because it was “highly relevant in that it showed an ongoing pattern of opportunistic fondling of young girls within the family context”).

See State v. Wermerskirchen , (other -crime evidence was admissible to prove the contested issue of whether defendant sexually touched his pre -adolescent daughter); - 56 (Minn. 1978) (evidence that the defendant sexually abused complainant’s half -sister was admissible to establish that the

n.3 (Minn. 1993) (“[T]he passage of a number of years may be without real significance if it turns out that the defendant was in prison in the interval between the prior offense and the current offense and was incapacitated from committing crime.”).

(past allegation of sexual assault of niece admissible to show a pattern of abusing you ng girls within the “family context”).

should be proper at least where the corpus delicti truly is in issue and where the trial court is satisfied that the other crime is sufficiently relevant to the charged crime.”

See State v. Wermerskirchen , , 240-42 (Minn. 1993) (holding that prior uncharged acts of sexual abuse are admissible as relevant to the issue of whether the charged act of sexual abuse occurred); State v. Hennum , , 798-99 (Minn. 1989) (holding that expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome is admissible); see also State v

See Washington, d at 202 -03 (affirming admission of 16-year-old Spreigl evidence); 243 (Minn. 1993) (affirming admission of 19-year-old Spreigl evidence).

(explaining that Spreigl evidence was relevant because it “tended to disprove the defense that [the victim] was fabricating or imagining the occurrence of sexual contact”).

Evidence of a common scheme or plan is relevant “in the specific context of rape and sex abuse prosecutions, particularly child sex abuse prosecutions.”

(stating that Spreigl evidence of defendant’s prior sexual conduct with female child relatives “was highly relevant to the specific issue of whether the conduct on which the charge was based actually occurred or was .

at 688; see also 9 -42 (Minn. 1993) (explaining that Spreigl evidence is admissible because it is not offered to show that the defendant is a bad person and raise an inference that he acted in conformity with his bad character, but to show that the conduct on which the charge is based actually occurred).

5 Relevance and Materiality In determining the relevance of Spreigl evidence, the district court should “focus on the closeness of the relationship between the other crimes and the charged crimes in terms of time, place and modus operandi.” (citation omitted).

Spreigl evidence may also be admitted to show the conduct on which the charge was based actually occurred or to refute arguments that it was “a fabrication or a mistake in perception by the victim.”

Spreigl evidence may also be admitted to show that the conduct on which the charge was based 8 actually occurred or to refute an argument that it was “a fabrication or a mistake in perception by the victim.”

Moreover, in criminal-sexual-conduct cases where the defendant denies that sexual conduct occurred, as Banks did, evidence of other instances of sexual misconduct is “highly relevant.”

Spreigl evidence may also be admitted to show the conduct on which the charge was based actually occurred or to refute arguments that it was “a fabrication or a mistake in perception by the victim.”

Mahdi’s argument fails because he is ignoring the rule of “multiple admissibility," which holds that "although a piece of evidence is inadmissible under one rule for the purpose given in offering it, it is nevertheless admissible if relevant and offered for some other purpose not forbidden by the rules of evidence.” Black's Law Dictionary 56 (10th ed.2014)