As alluded to in a previous post, evidence of a person’s habit (or an organization’s routine practice) is considered separately from character evidence.  Where character evidence is a generalized description of one’s disposition, habit is a regular response to a repeated, specific situation. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 406, Advisory Committee Comment. Questions used to determine whether particular behavior qualifies as a habit...

Due to the potential for misuse, evidence of a person’s character is admissible in very limited circumstances.  A jury that hears evidence of a person’s tendency toward violence, for instance, would probably find it difficult to disregard this information in determining whether the person committed a violent crime.  As a result, the rules defining the proper use of character evidence have been crafted over years of litigation as...

As part of the constitutional right to present a complete defense, Minnesota courts have held that criminal defendants should in certain circumstances be permitted to present evidence suggesting that the crime charged was committed by an alternative perpetrator. State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 597 (Minn. 2010). In order to present any evidence of an alternative perpetrator theory, the defendant must lay foundation by introducing evidence...

Spreigl evidence is evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. In other words, it is evidence that a person engaged in a bad act other than that which led to the case at hand. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) excludes other acts evidence to prove that the person acted the same way in the matter on trial, but allows admission of this evidence for the purpose of showing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or...