This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A15-0869

Fahad Abdihaim Diriye, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

Filed January 19, 2016

Affirmed

Chutich, Judge

Scott County District Court

File No. 70-CR-12-19441

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant 

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistant County Attorney, 

Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Chutich, Judge; and Hooten, 

Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

CHUTICH, Judge

Appellant Fahad Diriye appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. 

He asserts that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed third-
2

degree assault. He additionally argues that the district court erred by admitting other-badacts evidence regarding his 2011 aggravated-robbery conviction and that it further erred by 

failing to limit the testimony upon its admission. Because we conclude that the state’s 

evidence was legally sufficient to sustain Diriye’s conviction and any asserted errors in 

admitting testimony did not significantly affect the verdict or affect Diriye’s substantial 

rights, we affirm the district court’s denial of postconviction relief.

FACTS

This case arises from an assault in a public park. Around 6:00 p.m. on September 

17, 2012, the victim, D.B., and his girlfriend, C.G., drove into the parking lot next to the

basketball court in the park, where about fifteen young men were playing basketball. D.B. 

recognized a friend parked next to the court, pulled in beside him, and motioned to another

friend on the basketball court to ask for a cigarette.

While D.B. stood next to his friend’s car, a man wearing a red hooded sweatshirt 

approached him with his hand outstretched, as if to offer a handshake. The man attempted 

to cover his face with his arm and shirt as he walked. When D.B. outstretched his hand, 

he asked, “Is that Fahad?”

Rather than shake D.B.’s hand, the man punched D.B. in the mouth, causing D.B.

to fall to the ground and lose consciousness for five to six seconds. He suffered visible 

chips to two teeth and internal cracks to another. His injuries resulted in at least $3,000 of

dental damage, for which D.B. was uninsured.

D.B. later told police that, when he regained consciousness, his assailant came

toward him again and the group of young men playing basketball quickly approached, so 
3

he fled. He ran until he found a passerby with a cellphone and then he called the police. 

D.B. immediately reported to the police that the man who hit him was appellant Fahad 

Diriye. 

D.B. recognized Diriye because he knew Diriye from high school, and D.B. had 

informed Burnsville Police of Diriye’s role in a 2011 aggravated robbery. In April 2011,

D.B. skipped school and joined three friends, including Diriye, believing they were going 

to smoke marijuana. D.B. testified that, unbeknownst to him, his three companions 

arranged to sell a cellphone in a nearby parking lot, intending to rob the buyer. When the 

buyer arrived, D.B.’s companions feigned that the cellphone was stuck in the trunk of their 

car and used the guise to surround the buyer. D.B. testified that Diriye pressed his finger 

to the back of the buyer’s head, as if he had a gun, and coerced the buyer’s cooperation by 

threatening to shoot him. D.B. fled to a nearby parking ramp to avoid involvement in the 

crime, and he watched as police responded and arrested Diriye minutes later. Burnsville 

police called D.B. into the police station later that day, and D.B. gave a statement 

implicating his three companions. His statement led to the aggravated-robbery charge 

against Diriye, to which Diriye later pleaded guilty.

The day after the 2012 assault, D.B. contacted Diriye on Facebook, trying to induce 

Diriye to incriminate himself. D.B. testified that he asked Diriye why Diriye assaulted him

and that Diriye responded by threatening to assault him again if he “took it to court.” This 

particular statement, however, did not appear in the ten-page printout of their Facebook 

conversation that was introduced into evidence at trial. Diriye denied knowledge of the 
4

assault throughout their Facebook conversation and ultimately insisted that D.B.’s “joke”

had gone too far. 

At the police station the evening after the assault, D.B. and C.G. identified Diriye 

as the assailant from a photo lineup of six possible suspects. In their respective 

identifications, D.B. was one-hundred-percent certain and C.B. was fifty-percent certain of 

the assailant’s identity. 

The state charged Diriye with third-degree assault. See Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 

1 (2014). Before trial, the state filed notice of its intent to admit the details of the 2011 

aggravated robbery as other-bad-acts evidence. See Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); State v. Ness, 

707 N.W.2d 676, 685–86 (Minn. 2006) (noting the five-step process required to introduce 

other-bad-acts, or Spreigl, evidence). At a pretrial hearing, Diriye opposed admission of 

the 2011 aggravated robbery, and the district court ruled it admissible.

At trial, the assailant’s identity was the central issue. In their respective testimony, 

D.B. and C.G. identified Diriye as the assailant, and C.G. testified that she was now onehundred-percent certain of his identity. The state’s trial strategy relied heavily on

establishing Diriye’s motive for the assault: D.B.’s implication of Diriye in the 2011 

aggravated robbery. Through testimony from D.B. and a Burnsville Police Officer, the 

state elicited the specific facts of how the 2011 aggravated robbery was committed.

The defense argued that D.B. fabricated his assailant’s identity to ensure that he 

recouped the cost of his dental injuries. Diriye called two witnesses to testify that he was 

not the assailant. The first, Diriye’s friend S.I., testified that Diriye was not at the park that 

day. The second, Diriye’s acquaintance A.M.O., testified that he was sitting in a parked 
5

car near where the assault occurred and that the assailant had a totally different body type 

than Diriye. 

The jury convicted Diriye and the district court sentenced him to eighteen months 

in prison, stayed for five years and subject to terms of probation. In response to a probation 

violation in November 2013, the district court executed Diriye’s sentence, which he has 

now completed. In February 2015, Diriye filed a petition for postconviction relief, which 

the district court denied. Diriye appeals.

D E C I S I O N

I. Sufficiency of the Eyewitness Identification Evidence

In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt, this 

court “determine[s] whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the facts in the record 

would reasonably support the [factfinder’s] conclusion that the defendant was guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012). “The 

weight and credibility of the testimony of individual witnesses [are] for the jury to 

determine.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989) (citing State v. Engholm, 

290 N.W.2d 780, 784 (Minn. 1980)). We assume that the factfinder believed the state’s 

witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence. Id. We will not disturb the finding of guilt

if the factfinder, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the 

requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the 

defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476–77 

(Minn. 2004). 
6

A conviction may rest on the testimony of a single credible witness; a single 

witness’s identification testimony is sufficient if the witness testifies that the defendant is 

the person he or she saw commit the crime. State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368, 373 (Minn. 

1998). When a single eyewitness’s identification of an offender results from only fleeting 

or limited observation, however, corroboration of the eyewitness’s identification may be 

required. State v. Spann, 287 N.W.2d 406, 407–08 (Minn. 1979); see also State v. Walker, 

310 N.W.2d 89, 90 (Minn. 1981). 

Diriye argues that the eyewitness identifications by D.B. and C.G. were unreliable 

because the assailant wore a hoodie and covered his face as he approached D.B. Diriye 

contends that, because their identification testimony was unreliable, some independent

corroboration was required to sustain his conviction. His arguments are not persuasive. 

Sufficient evidence shows that the eyewitness identifications were neither fleeting

nor limited, so as to require corroboration. The two witnesses’ testimony at trial shows 

that they each had a meaningful opportunity to see the assailant, despite the assailant’s 

efforts to obscure his face. C.G. testified that she was one to two feet from the assailant 

when she saw him and he came between her and D.B. to hit D.B. The assailant came within 

arm’s reach of D.B., and D.B. testified that he knew it was Diriye right away when the 

assailant approached. The assailant lowered his arm before hitting D.B., and D.B. saw the 

assailant’s face before being struck. D.B. saw the assailant again when he regained 

consciousness because the assailant was standing over him while D.B. was on the ground. 

When police responded to the assault, D.B. immediately identified Diriye as the 

assailant, and he told them that Diriye had likely assaulted him in retaliation for his
7

statements to police incriminating Diriye in the 2011 aggravated robbery. D.B. described 

Diriye as “a taller, slender black man,” approximately 6’4” or 6’5.” C.G. similarly 

described the assailant to police as “tall, pretty dark-skinned, Somali.” At the photo lineup, each independently identified Diriye as the assailant.

The eyewitnesses’ testimony shows that their identifications were reliable. 

Accordingly, we need not reach Diriye’s corroboration argument. Because two 

eyewitnesses identified Diriye as the assailant, the evidence waslegally sufficient to sustain 

his conviction. 

II. Admission of Facts Underlying 2011 Aggravated-Robbery Conviction

Diriye challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling to admit the underlying facts 

of his 2011 aggravated-robbery conviction. He contends that the district court mistakenly 

relied upon this court’s decision in State v. Hollins to find the evidence admissible. See 

765 N.W.2d 125, 131–32 (Minn. App. 2009). He further maintains that, although the 

evidence that Diriye had been convicted of, and knew D.B. implicated him in, the 2011 

aggravated robbery was properly admitted, the district court erred by allowing the state to 

elicit extraneous prejudicial facts about the commission of the 2011 aggravated robbery. 

He urges that, because he objected to admission of the underlying facts in the pre-trial 

hearing, this court should review the evidentiary ruling under a harmless-error standard. 

He asserts that, regardless of the standard of review, however, the district court’s 

evidentiary errors entitle him to a new trial. As shown below, his arguments are unavailing. 
8

1. Pre-Trial Evidentiary Ruling

This court reviews the district court’s evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. 

Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685. An appellant contesting the admission of evidence “has the 

burden to show the admission was both erroneous and prejudicial.” State v. Riddley, 776

N.W.2d 419, 424 (Minn. 2009). “When the district court has erroneously admitted otheracts evidence, [appellate courts] must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility 

that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” Ness, 707 N.W.2d 

at 691.

Minnesota adheres to the rule generally excluding evidence connecting a defendant 

with other crimes, except for the purposes of impeachment if he takes the stand on his own 

behalf. State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490–91, 139 N.W.2d 167, 169 (1965). “This 

general exclusionary rule is grounded in the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” 

Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685. Although this type of evidence, other-bad-acts evidence, “is 

often probative, it also carries a great likelihood of inflaming passions and resulting in 

unfair prejudice.” Riddley, 776 N.W.2d at 424. With proper regard for the caution 

surrounding this type of evidence, “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts may be 

admitted only for limited, specific purposes.” Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685. 

A. Admissibility as “Intrinsic” or Immediate-Episode Evidence

One such exception to the general exclusionary rule, the immediate-episode 

exception, permits admission of evidence of bad acts if “two or more offenses are linked 

together in point of time or circumstances so that one cannot be fully shown without 
9

proving the other, or where evidence of other crimes constitutes part of the res gestae.” 1 

Riddley, 776 N.W.2d at 425 (noting narrow immediate-episode exception). Immediateepisode evidence is admissible “when there is a close causal and temporal connection 

between the prior bad act and the charged crime.” Id. at 425–26 (citing cases illustrating 

the “connection required to satisfy the narrow immediate-episode exception to the general 

character evidence rule”) (emphasis added). In State v. Nunn, for example, the Minnesota 

Supreme Court found that testimony regarding a kidnapping that occurred less than two 

months before the charged murder was immediate-episode evidence because the defendant 

obtained information during the kidnapping that motivated the charged murder. 561 

N.W.2d 902, 907–08 (Minn. 1997). 

In line with the immediate-episode exception, this court has held that other-bad-acts 

evidence that is “intrinsic” to the charged crime is admissible as an exception to the general 

exclusion. Hollins, 765 N.W.2d at 131–32. In Hollins, this court held that other-bad-acts 

evidence is intrinsic to the charged crime if:

(1) the other crime arose out of the same transaction or series 

of transactions as the charged crime, and (2) either (a) the other 

crime is relevant to an element of the charged crime, or (b) 

excluding evidence of the other crime would present an 

incoherent or incomplete story of the charged crime. 

 

1 Res gestae means “the events at issue or others contemporaneous with them.” Bryan A. 

Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, 777 (3d ed. 2011). In evidence law, res 

gestae is “a rule of relevance that makes testimony about the events forming part of the res 

gestae admissible.” Id. at 778.
10

Id. at 132. Published in 2009, Hollins is the only Minnesota case to create an intrinsicevidence exception, under which other-bad-acts evidence is admissible without a rule 

404(b) analysis. See id. at 131–32. 

Here, the state argued this evidence was admissible as intrinsic evidence under 

Hollins because the 2011 aggravated-robbery episode was “inextricably intertwined” with 

the charged offense. See id. (relying on “inextricably intertwined” federal caselaw). 

Accepting the state’s Hollins theory, the district court ruled that the 2011 aggravatedrobbery conviction was admissible. We disagree with the district court’s ruling on this 

ground. 

First, despite using the language of “intrinsic” evidence, Hollins appears to simply 

reiterate and refine the immediate-episode exception, which is well established in 

Minnesota evidentiary jurisprudence. See Riddley, 776 N.W.2d at 425–26 (noting the 

history of immediate-episode exception). The supreme court’s line of cases applying the 

immediate-episode exception predates Hollins and illustrates that the two exceptions serve 

nearly identical purposes. Id. (citing Nunn, 561 N.W.2d at 907–08; State v. Darveaux, 318 

N.W.2d 44, 48 (Minn. 1982) (holding that evidence of drugs found in the defendant's purse 

two days after drug store robbery was admissible as immediate-episode evidence where 

the drugs were the same type of drugs stolen from the drug store); State v. Leecy, 294 

N.W.2d 280, 282 (Minn. 1980) (explaining that testimony about earlier threats is

immediate-episode evidence because the earlier threats escalated into the charged assault);

and State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128, 197 N.W.2d 219, 226–27 (1972) (concluding that 

the district court properly admitted testimony regarding earlier robberies committed by the 
11

defendant because the defendant's desire to conceal the earlier robberies motivated the 

charged murder)). Second, since Hollins was decided in 2009, the supreme court has 

clarified that, absent a temporal and causal connection, immediate-episode evidence is not 

admissible merely to complete the story of the crime. Riddley, 776 N.W.2d at 425 n.3.

Further, regardless of whether the 2011 aggravated robbery was admitted under the 

Hollins intrinsic-evidence exception or under the established immediate-episode 

exception, its admission under either rationale was improper. This court has consistently 

applied Hollins to uphold admission of evidence of uncharged crimes closely connected in 

time and space to the charged crime.2 While all of our cases following and applying Hollins 

 

2

 See State v. Ogris, No. A14-1008, 2015 WL 1959867 (Minn. App. May 4, 2015) (finding 

no plain error resulted from admission of evidence that the appellant committed indecent 

exposure and stole a backpack the day of the charged offense), review denied (Minn. July 

21, 2015); State v. Porte, No. A14-0883, 2015 WL 1401519 (Minn. App. Mar. 30, 2015)

(finding no plain error resulted from admission of evidence that the appellant purchased a 

car with money and crack cocaine before being arrested for a controlled-substance offense), 

review denied (Minn. June 16, 2015); State v. Diggs, No. A13-2354, 2015 WL 404453 

(Minn. App. Feb. 2, 2015) (finding no plain error resulted from admission of evidence that 

the appellant sexually assaulted a minor before forcing her to engage in prostitution in a 

sex-trafficking prosecution), review denied (Minn. Apr. 14, 2015); State v. Gustafson, No. 

A12-1293, 2013 WL 4404241, at *3–4 (Minn. App. Aug. 19, 2013) (finding no plain error 

resulted from admission of evidence of “general hooliganism” and three uncharged thefts 

in a racketeering prosecution), review denied (Minn. Oct. 23, 2013); State v. Nelson, No. 

A12-1037, 2013 WL 3155409, at *5 (Minn. App. June 24, 2013), review denied (Minn. 

Sept. 17, 2013) (upholding admissibility of evidence of the complainant’s restraining order 

against the appellant in a stalking prosecution); Bresnahan v. State, No. A10-1146, 2011 

WL 500063, at *4 (Minn. App. Feb. 15, 2011) (noting that evidence of events surrounding 

appellant's sexual assault and burglary offenses was intrinsic to the charged crime); State 

v. McKay, No. A09-1827, 2010 WL 3958429, at *2–3 (Minn. App. Oct. 12, 

2010)(upholding admissibility of evidence that witness told victim that appellant had a gun 

and wanted to kill the victim); State v. Scheer, No. A08-2043, 2009 WL 3735797, at *2 

(Minn. App. Nov. 10, 2009) (upholding admissibility of evidence that appellant gave police 

a false name when he was arrested for the charged offense).
12

are unpublished and are not precedential, they persuasively show that the Hollins intrinsicevidence exception only applies to uncharged conduct that is closely connected temporally 

and conceptually to the charged crime. Since the 2009 publication of Hollins establishing 

the definition of intrinsic evidence, we can find no case relying on Hollins to admit 

evidence of a previous conviction. Moreover, the 2011 aggravated robbery does not share 

the necessary temporal connection with the charged offense; the two offenses occurred 

over seventeen months apart. Without this temporal connection, the 2011 aggravated 

robbery is neither immediate-episode nor intrinsic evidence. 

B. Admissibility as Spreigl Evidence

The state alternatively argued that the 2011 aggravated robbery conviction was 

admissible as Spreigl evidence. Although the district court did not rely on this reasoning, 

we agree.

Evidence of other bad acts may be admissible for the limited purpose of “showing 

motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme 

or plan.” Minn. R. Evid. 404(b); see also Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685. Such evidence may 

not be introduced if its tendency to unfairly prejudice the factfinder substantially outweighs 

its probative value. Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685. Moreover, if the admissibility of such 

evidence is a “close call,” it should be excluded. Id. 

“A number of procedural requirements and safeguards govern the admission, 

presentation, and consideration of other-crime evidence.” State v. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d 191, 

196 (Minn. 1995). The supreme court has developed a five-step process to determine
13

admissibility of other-bad-acts evidence. Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685–86. Under this process, 

[c]ourts examine five factors in deciding whether to admit such 

evidence: (1) whether the state has given “notice of its intent 

to admit the evidence”; (2) whether the state has “clearly 

indicate[d] what the evidence will be offered to prove”; (3) 

whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant participated in the prior act”; (4) whether the 

evidence is “relevant and material to the state's case”; and (5) 

whether the probative value of the “evidence is outweighed by 

its potential prejudice to the defendant.”

State v. Clark, 738 N.W.2d 316, 345 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Ness, 707 N.W.2d at 685–86).

Finally, the district court “should give an appropriate cautionary instruction both upon 

receipt of the other-crime evidence and as part of the final instructions, even if not 

specifically requested to do so by defense counsel.” Bolte, 530 N.W.2d at 197 (Minn. 

1995). Failure to comply with certain Spreigl requirements can result in reversible error 

and a new trial. See Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 490, 139 N.W.2d at 169. 

Under the required procedure in the instant case, the state fulfilled steps one and 

two before trial, and because the evidence involved a conviction, step three was fulfilled. 

See State v. Blom, 682 N.W.2d 578, 601 (Minn. 2004) (holding that defendant's conviction

was clear and convincing evidence of prior incident). Regarding step four, the district 

court appropriately reasoned that the 2011 aggravated-robbery conviction was relevant to 

the issue of Diriye’s motive to commit the 2012 assault. Concerning step five, the district 

court conducted no analysis of potential prejudice to the defendant before ruling the 

episode to be admissible. Although the district court provided a final cautionary 
14

instruction,3the transcript shows that the district court gave no cautionary instruction upon 

receipt of two witnesses’ testimony regarding the 2011 aggravated robbery. 

While we agree that evidence of the conviction itself was admissible for the limited 

purpose of showing Diriye’s motive, the district court did not accord Diriye all of the 

procedural safeguards required to admit it as Spreigl evidence. The district court 

improperly ruled the evidence admissible as intrinsic evidence and, relying on Hollins, 

subsequently omitted a Spreigl prejudice analysis and failed to give cautionary instructions 

upon receipt of the evidence. See Hollins, 765 N.W.2d at 131–32 (noting that a Spreigl 

analysis is unnecessary if the evidence of another crime is intrinsic to the crime charged). 

Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion. 

We conclude, however, that the incorrectly admitted evidence of the 2011 

aggravated-robbery conviction did not significantly affect the verdict. Diriye concedes on 

appeal that “evidence that Diriye had been convicted of and knew D.B. had implicated him 

in the April 2011 robbery was properly admitted.” This concession, by itself, substantially 

lessens any prejudice to Diriye’s substantial rights because the jury was inevitably going 

 

3

 The court’s cautionary instruction read as follows: 

The State introduced evidence of an occurrence on April 5, 

2011, in Burnsville, Minnesota. This evidence was offered for 

the limited purpose of assisting you in determining whether the 

Defendant committed those acts for which he is charged in this

complaint. The Defendant is not being tried for and may not 

be convicted for any offense other than the charged offense. 

You are not to convict the Defendant on the basis of the 

occurrences of April 5, 2011. To do so might result in unjust 

double punishment.
15

to hear some evidence of his involvement in a 2011 aggravated robbery. Because 

admission of the conviction itself did not affect the verdict, Diriye is not entitled to a new 

trial on this ground. Thus, we turn to Diriye’s second argument regarding the scope of the 

prior-crime evidence.

2. Scope of the Challenged Testimony

Once other-bad-acts evidence is admitted, the defendant bears the burden of 

challenging its scope. State v. Washington, 693 N.W.2d 195, 204 (Minn. 2005) (noting 

appellant’s concession that certain other-bad-acts evidence may have been relevant due to 

similarities). When a defendant has not objected contemporaneously to the manner in 

which other-bad-acts evidence is presented, the supreme court has expressed reluctance to 

second-guess the district court’s discretion. Ture v. State, 681 N.W.2d 9, 16 (Minn. 2004)

(faulting the defendant’s failure to object when the contested testimony was introduced and 

holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to present 

24 witnesses who testified for three days of a 12-day murder trial about the details of otherbad-acts evidence involving another murder). When the record demonstrates that the 

district court had no advance opportunity to consider the contested aspect of the other-badacts testimony, the supreme court reframes the issue as whether the district court failed to 

sua sponte strike the contested testimony or to provide a cautionary instruction. State v. 

Vick, 632 N.W.2d 676, 685 (Minn. 2001). 

The supreme court considered a challenge to the scope of Spreigl evidence 

testimony in State v. Washington. 693 N.W.2d at 204. Washington had been charged with 

ten counts of criminal sexual conduct involving a person younger than 18 years old. Id. at 
16

198. The district court permitted Spreigl evidence involving Washington's convictions for 

third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl and witness tampering arising 

out of a single incident. Id. at 198-99. On appeal, Washington conceded “some 

similarities” between the prior and charged acts, but “argue[d] that the district court should 

have excluded testimony of extraneous prejudicial facts,” including that the girl “was 

forced to work as a prostitute, that Washington cut her throat, that she contracted a pelvic 

disease, and that Washington's actions were responsible for her infertility.” Id. at 204.

Although the supreme court agreed that the “testimony should have been limited to 

exclude elements not needed or relevant to prove modus operandi,” it observed that 

Washington “failed to take the initiative to seek such limits.” Id. Washington had only 

responded with a generalized objection to the state's Spreigl notice and did not seek to limit 

these “extraneous facts.” Id. (quotations omitted). Washington did not submit a motion in 

limine to challenge the scope of the testimony although he could have “right up to the 

moment [the witness] testified.” Id. Washington did not generally object when the witness 

testified to these facts at trial, and he did not request a curative instruction or that the 

testimony be stricken. Id. at 204–05. Ultimately, the court concluded that the district court 

was not obligated to sua sponte limit the scope of the witness's testimony. Id. at 205.

Holding these general principles in mind, we address Diriye’s challenge to the scope 

of the bad-acts evidence here. Diriye filed no motion in limine before trial to limit the 

testimony surrounding the 2011 aggravated-robbery conviction. Although he contested 

admission of the entire episode at the pre-trial hearing, he made no attempt to limit the 

scope once the district court ruled it admissible. Moreover, he failed to object when the 
17

now-challenged testimony arose, and he failed to request either a curative instruction or 

that the prejudicial extraneous facts be stricken. Accordingly, Diriye did not carry his 

burden of objecting to the scope of the testimony, and we reframe the issue as whether the 

district court erred by failing to sua sponte limit the testimony of the 2011 aggravatedrobbery conviction. See id. at 205. We review this unobjected-to testimony for plain error. 

Id. 

This court follows a three-prong test for plain error, which requires that, before an 

appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and 

(3) the error affected an appellant’s substantial rights. State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 

740 (Minn. 1998). The third prong of this test “is satisfied if the error was prejudicial and 

affected the outcome of the case.” Id. at 741. The burden of persuasion on the third prong 

falls to the defendant, and this burden is a heavy one. Id.; see also State v. Mosley, 853 

N.W.2d 789, 801–03 (Minn. 2014) (finding that, even assuming that plain error occurred, 

no relief was warranted because the defendant’s substantial rights were not violated). 

Applying these principles here, we need not determine whether plain error occurred 

because Diriye cannot show that his substantial rights were affected by the admission of 

the underlying facts of the 2011 aggravated robbery. First, we emphasize again that Diriye 

concedes on appeal that “evidence that Diriye had been convicted of and knew [D.B.] had 

implicated him in the April 2011 robbery was properly admitted.” 

Second, the record shows that the underlying facts of the 2011 aggravated robbery 

did not play a prominent role at trial. While two witnesses testified as to the sequence of 

events, this testimony was limited, and much more attention was given to D.B.’s actions 
18

during the 2011 episode than to Diriye’s. In opening statements and closing arguments for 

each side, Diriye’s actions in the 2011 aggravated robbery received little focus.

Third, the record suggests that Diriye’s counsel may have intentionally decided, as 

part of his trial strategy, not to object to the testimony. Throughout trial, Diriye’s counsel 

emphasized many of the details of D.B.’s actions in the 2011 aggravated robbery episode 

to paint him as a “squealer,” a “schemer,” and an opportunistic liar, casting doubt on D.B.’s 

credibility. For the district court to sua sponte limit the testimony may have interfered with 

the defendant’s trial strategy, which “would risk highlighting or enforcing rights that the 

defendant had, for tactical reasons, decided to waive.” Washington, 693 N.W.2d at 205.

Fourth, admission of the 2011 aggravated-robbery episode through witness 

testimony—rather than through a certified copy of Diriye’s conviction—may even have 

benefitted Diriye. The descriptive witness testimony left little room for speculation by the 

jury. Rather than simply hear that Diriye had been convicted of second-degree aggravated 

robbery, the jury heard mitigating testimony that Diriye used his finger instead of a weapon 

in committing the crime, Diriye was unsuccessful in his attempt to rob the victim, the police 

responded within minutes, and no harm came to the victim. 

Finally, any prejudice arising from the jury learning about specific facts from the 

2011 aggravated robbery was mitigated by the district court’s cautionary instruction. See 

State v. Ferguson, 581 N.W.2d 824, 833 (Minn. 1998) (observing that the court assumes 

that the jury follows a district court's instruction).

In sum, because Diriye concedes that some evidence of the 2011 aggravated robbery 

was admissible, and he cannot show that any additional facts admitted describing the 
19

circumstances of the robbery were so prejudicial as to have affected the outcome of the 

case, he cannot meet his heavy burden of showing plain error. Because Diriye was not 

entitled to a new trial, the district court properly denied Diriye’s petition for postconviction 

relief. 

Affirmed.