Cited by

(citing Spreigl, d at 167).

e state argued that the evidence was admissible to show motive, intent, plan, preparation and “a propensity towards inappropriate sexual contact with young girls and is admissible to prove a common scheme or plan.” At the hearing on the motion, the state confirmed that it also sought to 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.” (citing Spreigl, ).

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

To show a common scheme, the evidence “need not be identical in every way to the charged crime but must instead be sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense —determined by time, place and modus operandi.”

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

tnesses] and Mr. Hager leading 11 up to our charges in this case.” The instructions also reite rated that Hager “is not being tried for and may not be convict ed of any offense other than the charged offenses which were outlined in the formal complaint.” These cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being give n by the jury to the evidence.”

Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts—often called “ Spreigl evidence.” State v. Kennedy

Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) govern s the admissibility of evidence of other crimes or bad acts, commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.” State v. Kennedy , (citing State v. Spreigl , ).

Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts—commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.” d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998) (citing State v. Spreigl , ).

(“[W]e see no reason why corroboration of the Spreigl victim’s testimony is necessary as a matter of law to meet the clear and convincing standard.”).

To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, the state must show that the evidence makes the thing to be proved “highly probable,” (quotation omitted), and it may do so with either direct or circumstantial evidence, –04 (Minn. 1991).

To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, the state must show that the evidence makes the thing to be proved “highly probable,” (quotation omitted), and it may do so with either direct or circumstantial evidence, – 04 (Minn. 1991).

10 (that court read cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”) The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Spreigl evidence of Lampi’s past conviction.

Such evidence is commonly referred to as “Spreigl evidence.” see State v. Kennedy

d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998).

(noting that providing cautionary instructions lessened the likelihood that the jury would give undue weight to the evidence).

Campbell, d at 102 (quoting State v. Kennedy

404(b); State v. Kennedy

404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

Such evidence is commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.”2 d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998).

404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().

See State v. Kennedy , , 390 (Minn. 1998) (referring to the requirement for admission of Spreigl evidence as a "procedural safeguard").

To determine the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, courts 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.” (quotation omitted).

“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” State v. Kennedy

Evidence that provides the context of a relationship “bolsters its probative value.”

Relevancy and Materiality To determine the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, courts 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.” State v. Kennedy , (quotation omitted).

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

(noting that “evidence of other crimes, including subsequent ones , may be admitt ed for a proper purpose” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)).

For evidence to be clear and convincing, th ere must be “more than a preponderance of the eviden ce but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).