Spreigl Evidence: Prior Bad Acts Under Rule 404(b)

The General Rule: Character Evidence Is Out

Rule 404(b) starts from a firm principle: the State can't prove you committed this crime by showing you committed other bad acts and arguing you have a criminal character. That kind of "propensity" reasoning is exactly what the rule forbids — the danger being that a jury convicts to punish past conduct rather than because the State proved the current charge.

The Exceptions

The same evidence may be admissible for a non-propensity purpose. The classic Spreigl purposes — from State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (1965) — include motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity, and common scheme or plan. The line between "showing bad character" (forbidden) and "showing intent or identity" (potentially allowed) is where these fights happen.

The Safeguards the State Must Meet

Because the evidence is so dangerous, Minnesota requires the State to clear several steps before it can use Spreigl evidence:

1. The State must give notice of its intent to use the evidence;
2. It must clearly identify what the evidence is offered to prove;
3. There must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the prior act (a standard higher than preponderance, though lower than beyond a reasonable doubt);
4. The evidence must be relevant and material to the State's case; and
5. Its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice.

A Note on Domestic and Relationship Cases

Evidence of similar prior conduct against a victim of domestic abuse or a family/household member is handled under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 as "relationship evidence," and Minnesota courts have held the Rule 404(b) clear-and-convincing standard does not apply to that statutory category. This is a distinct track that comes up often in domestic cases, and it's analyzed differently from ordinary Spreigl evidence.

How It's Challenged

The defense can attack Spreigl evidence at several points — arguing the notice was inadequate, that the prior act isn't proven by clear and convincing evidence, that it's really just propensity dressed up as "intent," or that whatever limited value it has is outweighed by the unfair prejudice of telling the jury about other bad conduct. Keeping this evidence out can be as important as any suppression motion.