Evidence Basics

When and How to use Character Evidence

When and How to use Character Evidence

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...

Read More

Spreigl Evidence – The Basics

Spreigl Evidence – The Basics

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...

Read More

Relevance and the Rule 403 Analysis

Relevance and the Rule 403 Analysis

We’re going back to basics today, examining relevance and the analysis necessary when certain evidence has potential prejudicial value. According to Minnesota Rule of Evidence 401, “relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.  However, not all relevant...

Read More

Standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence

Standard of review for convictions based on circumstantial evidence

Contrary to what a portion of the public believes, circumstantial evidence is admissible and can be used to prove a party’s case.  When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for a conviction, a reviewing court will engage in a two-part analysis in addressing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.  The components of this analysis were reviewed recently by the Minnesota Supreme Court, State v. Hurd, A11-1057 (Minn. August 8,...

Read More

Applying the harmless error standard when constitutional rights are affected

Applying the harmless error standard when constitutional rights are affected

In order to constitute reversible error, the admission of evidence must be an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and must affect a substantial right of a party.  See Minnesota Rule of Evidence 103(a). The latter part of this analysis, the harmless error rule, is often relied upon by an appellate court to avoid reversal of a lower court’s ruling.  To determine whether a constitutional error regarding the admission of...

Read More

Offering evidence – wait for the court’s ruling.

Offering evidence – wait for the court’s ruling.

A recent decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court, State of Minnesota v. Radke, A09-0834 (Minn. September 12, 2012), contains a good reminder: do not assume you know what the court will do and withdraw evidence before you have received a ruling. In Radke, an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction and the denial of postconviction relief, the appellant argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney...

Read More