Opinion ID: 1620467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance and Materiality

Text: In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, the trial court should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place or modus operandi. DeBaere, 356 N.W.2d at 305; see also Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d at 240 (citing State v. Filippi, 335 N.W.2d 739, 743 (Minn. 1983)). The closer the relationship between the events, the greater the relevance or probative value of the evidence and the lesser the likelihood the evidence will be used for an improper purpose. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d at 198 (citation omitted). This court has been flexible in applying this `test' on appeal, upholding admission notwithstanding a lack of closeness in time or place if the relevance of the evidence was otherwise clear. Id. (citing State v. Matteson, 287 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. 1979); State v. Bolts, 288 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1980); State v. Bellcourt, 312 Minn. 263, 251 N.W.2d 631 (1977)). In this case, N.G.'s Spreigl testimony was offered to show a common scheme or plan and to refute allegations of fabrication. The court of appeals stated that `common scheme and plan' evidence is commonly used to show identity indirectly by establishing a modus operandi. But identity is not in dispute here; if there was an incident, appellant was the perpetrator. Further, the charged and Spreigl incidents were significantly different  without a common scheme or plan. Kennedy, 572 N.W.2d at 62. We disagree. First, the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the charged and Spreigl incidents were significantly different  without a common scheme or plan. Id. And second, the use of common scheme or plan evidence is not limited to instances when identity is at issue. Spreigl evidence need not be identical in every way to the charged crime, but must instead be sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense  determined by time, place and modus operandi. See State v. Cogshell, 538 N.W.2d 120, 123-24 (Minn.1995). The facts of this case indicate that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was a substantial similarity between the two incidents. First, the incidents occurred within six months of each other. Second, the time and place where each incident occurred were identical: late at night in N.G.'s bedroom. Finally, the modus operandi was nearly identical. On each occasion Kennedy left the mother's bedroom and went to N.G.'s room. In the charged offense, Kennedy rubbed N.G.'s thighs and made other sexual advances toward her  including attempting to place his penis in her vagina. In the Spreigl incident, Kennedy allegedly rubbed N.G.'s thighs and made other sexual advances toward her  including allegedly attempting to penetrate her digitally and offering her money for sex. Both incidents involved nearly identical advances and an attempted penetration; in other words, a common scheme or plan. The court of appeals also erred by suggesting that such common scheme or plan evidence is only applicable in cases where identity is at issue. While it is true that common scheme or plan evidence is used in cases where identity is at issue, it is not limited to such use. We have repeatedly upheld the admission of Spreigl evidence on the issue of whether the act occurred. See e.g., Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d at 241; State v. Anderson, 275 N.W.2d 554, 555-56 (Minn. 1978) (admitting Spreigl evidence to show common scheme or plan and to refute defendant's allegation that the victim's testimony was a fabrication); State v. Shuffler, 254 N.W.2d 75, 76 (Minn.1977) (stating that the Spreigl evidence was directly relevant to the jury's resolution of the key factual issue, which was whether defendant had taken indecent liberties with the victim, as she testified, or whether [the testimony was a fabrication] as defendant testified.). The Spreigl evidence in this case was offered for the identical purpose as the Spreigl evidence in both Shuffler and Anderson: to prove a common scheme or plan, and to refute defendant's contention that the victim's testimony was a fabrication. See Anderson, 275 N.W.2d 554; Shuffler, 254 N.W.2d at 76; see also Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d at 242 (stating that where corpus delicti is at issue, particularly in child sex abuse cases, the trial court should admit the Spreigl evidence if it is satisfied that the other crime is sufficiently relevant to the charged crime.). While it is important to make plain that such bad act evidence cannot be used to prove action in conformity therewith, it can be used to show a link between the bad act and the charged offense in order to establish a modus operandi, or to refute defendant's allegation that the charged incident was merely a fabrication. The trial court was clearly within its broad discretion in ruling that the Spreigl evidence was both relevant and material.