Cited by

If an appellate court determines that the district court erroneously admitted Spreigl evidence, the appellate court must then determine “whether there is a reasonable 6 possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

A defendant is entitled to a new trial when the district court erroneously admits Spreigl evidence if “there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Post , n.2 (Minn. 1994) (“It is when dealing with a claim of erroneous admission of evidence that the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly 30 affected the verdict .

“Unfair prejudice ‘does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’” (d 191, 197 n.3 (Minn. 1995)), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

(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); Stat

“Need” does not necessarily mean that the state lacks “sufficient other evidence to convict.” d 191, 197 n.2 (Minn. 1995).

The state argues that it provided sufficient notice before trial and points out that the amended complaint included a “detailed description of the uncharged instances of sexual abuse.” The state is obligated to notify a defendant of its intent to admit Spreigl evidence “within a reasonable time before trial.”

If an appellate court determines that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Spreigl evidence, it must then consider whether there is a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” Id.

“The notice requirement is designed to give a defendant sufficient opportunity to prepare for trial and to avoid situations where a defendant must defend against unexpected testimony regarding prior offenses.” see also Minn. R. Juv.

Notice defects do not require reversal when there was “substantial compliance with the notice requirements and lack of prejudice to the defendant.”

” State v. Bolte , (quoting State v. Post , n.2 (Mi nn.

“Our role is to examine the entire trial record and determine whether there is a reasonable 36 possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“Unfair 5 prejudice ‘does not mean the damage to the opponent’s case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather, it refers to the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’” ( n.3 (Minn. 1995)), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

To make this determination, we examine the record as a whole, and “consider the manner in whic h the evidence was presented, whether the evidence was highly persuasive, whether it was used in closing argument, and whether it was effectively countered by the defense.” -99 (Minn. 1995).

10 In a typical Spreigl review, we consider “prejudice” twice: once when performing the required balancing test for error , and again when determining whether “the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“Unfair prejudice” means “‘the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.’” Montgomery, d at 399 (quoting State v. Bolte , n.3 (Minn. 1995) ).

State v. Bolte , , 198 (Minn. 1995).

State v. Bolte , , 198 n.6 (Minn. 1995).

State v. Bolte , -99 (Minn. 1995).

The ultimate issue is not the temporal relationship but relevance.” (citation omitted).

State v. Bolte , -99 (Minn. 1995).

[E]vidence of other offenses may be needed because, as a practical matter, it is not clear that the jury will believe the state’s other evidence bearing on the disputed issue.” (quoting State v. Bolte , n.2 (Minn. 1995)).

-99 (Minn. 1995) (considering how the state presented the ev idence when determining whether the erroneous admission of Spreigl evidence was prejudicial).

(noting that district court should give cautionary instruction upon admitting Spreigl evidence and during final instructions, even if defense counsel does not request it).

See State v. Clark , –48 (Minn. 2007); State v. Bolte , –99 (Minn. 1995).

–99 (Minn. 1995) (concluding that no prejudice resulted from erroneous admission of other-crime evidence after considering “a number of factors including the overwhelming evidence linking the defendant to the [crime of conviction]; the fact that the defense’s evidence was weak and of highly doubtful credibilit

-97 (Minn. 1995) (listing procedural safeguards for admitting Spreigl evidence).

But even where defense counsel does not make a specific request, the district court “should give an appropriate cautionary instruction both upon receipt of the other-crime evidence and as part of the final instructions.”

-99 (Minn. 1995); -38 (Minn. 2007) (discussing the lack of prejudice to appellant due to a cautionary instruction with respect to Spreigl evidence).

An error is harmful if there is a reasonable possibility that the “wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” ().

“A number of procedural requirements and safeguards govern the admission, presentation, and consideration of other-crime evidence.”