Opinion ID: 1577759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reverse-Spreigl Evidence.

Text: Based on Richardson's proffered evidence connecting Nichols to the scene, Richardson satisfied the foundational requirements for the admission of reverse- Spreigl evidence. The reverse- Spreigl evidence was relevant to Richardson's claim that Nichols fired the second shot because it showed that an abusive relationship had existed between Nichols and Van Der Molen and that Nichols had previously assaulted him, attempted to poison him, made death threats to him and solicited someone to kill him. Because the district court focused exclusively on issues relating to the defense of others and not the reverse- Spreigl issue, the court did not determine whether Richardson's proffered evidence could meet the clear-and-convincing standard required for reverse- Spreigl evidence. Some of Richardson's evidence was based on court records that presumably would be regarded as clear and convincing. Other evidence involved statements by Van Der Molen or Nichols to third persons who, Richardson represented, were prepared to testify. The appropriate process for the district court to employ to evaluate the offer of proof of this reverse- Spreigl evidence would be to conduct an evidentiary hearing, out of the presence of the jury, to determine whether the proffered evidence was clear and convincing. State v. DeWald, 464 N.W.2d 500, 505 (Minn.1991) (stating the trial court should consider, in a close case, requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of Spreigl evidence rather than relying on the offer of proof procedure). See also, 8 Henry McCarr & Jack Nordby, Minnesota PracticeCriminal Law and Procedure § 32.20(C), n. 21 (3d ed.2001) (suggesting [m]uch can be said for a rule that would require testimony upon the request of the defendant. Without it, it is difficult in many cases to see how the clear-and-convincing determination can be made.). Richardson's offer of proof described several items of evidence which, on their face, appear adequate to prove Van Der Molen's or Nichol's participation in each of the alleged incidents. There does not appear to be any reasonable basis to determine that the evidence is not clear and convincing without an evidentiary hearing.