If the trials had been correctly severed, for example, evidence of the May 1997 sexual assault during the trial involving the January 1997 sexual assault may have been admissible as Spreigl evidence, but would have been subject to Spreigl procedural protections . This case essentially consisted of Kates' word against each alleged victim. For example, C.L.'s testimony during the trial involving J.S. was prejudicial because it was unrelated and it indicated to the jury that Kates' was a predator of young girls. Further, if the cases had been correctly severed, and Kates had not been found guilty on the count involving C.L., her testimony could not have been used in subsequent trials. Kates argues the prejudicial evidence was not harmless.
Appellate courts consider the impact of error on the verdict.
The overwhelming evidence of guilt is a factor, often a very important one, in determining whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error has no impact on the verdict. A thorough review of the evidence reveals that the state's case falls squarely upon the credibility of Kates and the alleged victims. Kates' defense to all the counts was that he never had sexual contact with any of the girls. The jury had to decide whether they believed the alleged victims or whether they believed Kates, as there was no physical evidence to corroborate the victims' testimony. Here, the state did not present a strong case of Kates' guilt.