Cited by

(affirming the admission of Spreigl evidence to “refute defendant’s contention that the victim’s testimony was a fabrication”).

6 The clear-and-convincing standard “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt .” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.”

at 236-38; (determining that attempted digital penetration and attempted penile penetration of a child were “nearly identical advances”).

Generally, “evidence of other crimes or misconduct is not admissible” except to show “motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” see also Minn. R. Evid.

“A defendant who claims the [district] court erred in admitting evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.” (quotation omitted).

In October 2022, he 1 (“Other crimes evidence, often referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after this court’s shall not be admitted in a criminal prosecution unless: (1) notice is given that the state intends to use the evidence; (2) the state clearly i

“[C]autionary instructions ‘lessen[] the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.’” Lindsey, d at 757 (); (stating that the potential for unfair prejudice from relationship evidence may be lessened by the district court providing a cautionary instruction to the jury).

5 (5) prove “that the probative value of the Spreigl evidence is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.” ().

These cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”

But “Spreigl evidence need not be identical in every way to the charged crime.”

In Minnesota, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known as “Spreigl evidence.”

Spreigl evidence “may be admitted for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity, or a common scheme or plan.” Minn. R. Evid.

Consequently, t hose instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”

The state also points out that M.S.’s testimony was corroborated by text messages between M.S. and Davis and that the supreme court “has on numerous occasions admitted Spreigl evidence supported only by the testimony of the victim of the Spreigl offense.”

“When it is unclear whether Spreigl evidence is admissible, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the defendant and the evidence should be excluded.”

See State v. Kennedy , (noting that providing cautionary instructions lessened the likelihood that the jury would give undue weight to the evidence).

Other-acts evidence is “often referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after [the Minnesota Supreme Court’s] decision in State v. Spreigl.” ().

In Minnesota, evidence of other crimes 5 or bad acts is known as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

See, (determining that a limiting instruction “lessened the probability of 14 undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence”); (noting that the district court’s limiting instruction supported the conclusion that the Spreigl evidence was not unfa

(reasoning that “the modus operandi was nearly identical” because both incidents involved attempted penetration of the same victim in the same room).

See State v. Kennedy , (reasoning that close relationship between events increases the relevance or probative value of evidence).

Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

to prepare her for trial, she made statements 1 In Minnesota, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

The district court ruled that evidence of Schober’s prior out-of- 1 Evidence of other crimes is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

is subjected to an exacting review.”

Evidence of prior crimes or wrongdoing is often called “Spreigl evidence.” ().

(citing State v. Spreigl, 5 ).

is subjected to an exacting review.”

In addition, the state presented Spreigl evidence of a 2020 incident of alleged criminal sexual conduct by Younis, 1 which was generally 1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

8 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

The state also called Kern Pieh, whose testimony focused on her experience working with sexual-abuse victims, including her work with CornerHouse, a child-advocacy center 1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

(stating that juries presumably follow instructions); (stating that cautionary instructions reduce risk of unfair prejudice).

(stating that the district court’s cautionary instructions to the jury “lessened the 12 probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence”).