Opinion ID: 2122312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Right to Present a Defense and Reverse -Spreigl Evidence

Text: We have said, Due process requires that every [criminal] defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. State v. Richardson, 670 N.W.2d 267, 277 (Minn.2003) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; accord Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations.). The right to present a complete defense includes the right to present evidence. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038; see also United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867-68, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982) (holding that trial courts must allow a defendant to present favorable material evidence). In some cases, courts allow a defendant to use alternative perpetrator evidence, or evidence that inculpates a third person as the perpetrator of the crime charged, in order to cast reasonable doubt on the State's case. See State v. Hawkins, 260 N.W.2d 150, 158 (Minn. 1977). Such evidence is admissible if it has an inherent tendency to connect the alternative party with the commission of the crime. Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 16. A defendant may also seek to present evidence of an alternative perpetrator's other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts. Id. The admission of such evidence is in part controlled by Minn. R. Evid. 404(b), which provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts separate from the crime charged is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Under Rule 404(b), however, evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts sometimes called Spreigl evidenceis admissible for purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident if the several requirements in Rule 404(b) are satisfied. Under these requirements, the State must give notice; the State must indicate what the evidence will be offered to prove; the other crime, wrong, or act must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; the evidence must be related to the State's case; and the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. Minn. R. Evid. 404(b). We have said that evidence of an alternative perpetrator's other crimes, wrongs, or bad actssometimes called reverse- Spreigl evidenceis admissible to cast reasonable doubt upon the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the charged crime. Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 16; see also State v. Bock, 229 Minn. 449, 458, 39 N.W.2d 887, 892 (1949). To introduce reverse- Spreigl evidence at trial, a defendant must first meet the threshold requirement of connecting the alternative perpetrator to the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged. Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 16. If the defendant meets this threshold requirement, the reverse- Spreigl evidence is admissible if the defendant can show (1) by clear and convincing evidence that the third party participated in the reverse- Spreigl incident; (2) that the reverse- Spreigl incident is relevant and material to defendant's case; and (3) that the probative value of the reverse- Spreigl evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. Woodruff v. State, 608 N.W.2d 881, 885 (Minn.2000) (citing Johnson, 568 N.W.2d at 433-34); see also Jones, 678 N.W.2d at 16-17. Though the Spreigl and reverse- Spreigl tests are similar, we have said that in the case of reverse- Spreigl evidence, Sixth Amendment concerns (right to confront one's accuser and right to present evidence) enter into the picture when it is the defendant who is seeking to present the [other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts] evidence. State v. Robinson, 536 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn.1995). Here, the threshold requirement that Swaney connect Flowers to the commission of Nelson's murder is not disputed by the parties and is not at issue. Additionally, the first requirement has been satisfiedbecause Flowers pleaded guilty to the kidnap and robbery of M.K., there is clear and convincing evidence that Flowers participated in the reverse- Spreigl incident. The parties, however, do dispute whether the kidnap and robbery of M.K. is relevant and material to Swaney's case. When offered to establish the identity of the perpetrator, an alternative perpetrator's other crime, wrongs or bad act is relevant to a defendant's case if the other crime, wrong, or bad act is sufficiently similar to the charged crime in terms of time, place, or modus operandi. State v. Johnson, 568 N.W.2d 426, 434 (Minn.1997). The reverse- Spreigl incident that Swaney sought to introduce at his trial was a kidnap and robbery that Flowers committed in May 2001, a past crime. The central question is whether Flowers's past crimethe kidnap and robbery of M.K. is sufficiently similar to the Nelson murder in terms of time, place, or modus operandi to be relevant and admissible.