Court Opinion

ID: 9883995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:30:14.632625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.153630
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
dissenting.
The trial court permitted several witnesses to testify about appellant’s relationship with her daughter Maria and appellant’s interaction with other children. Because this testimony included highly prejudicial evidence tending only to assassinate the character of appellant and because the conflicting medical evidence creates an extremely close case, the erroneous evidentia-ry rulings require a new trial.
1. Unproven relevancy.
To be admissible, “bad acts” or “other crimes” evidence must meet three requirements: (1) the evidence must be relevant and material to the state’s case; (2) the defendant’s participation in the offense must be clear and convincing; and (3) the probative character of the evidence must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice. State v. Filippi, 335 N.W.2d 739, 743 (Minn.1983).
*767The trial court admitted evidence of the child's broken arm, a black eye, and blood on the child’s face and mouth. There was not, however, clear and convincing evidence that these injuries were the result of appellant’s conduct.
Dr. Goldfarb testified that appellant came to his office with Maria on October 28, 1985. At that time, Dr. Goldfarb discovered a nondisplaced fracture with a break above the elbow in the lower third of the humerus. There was no testimony or record of a connection between this injury and abuse of the child by appellant.
Diana Niles testified that she saw Maria in her parent’s furniture store in January or February 1986. She testified that Maria had a “black eye” on that day. She also testified that she saw that Maria had a broken arm, and that appellant “didn’t really know at first how it happened.” Finally, Ms. Niles testified that in May 1986 she saw Maria with blood on her face, in her mouth, and with “puffy cheeks.”
This evidence is highly probative, if appellant’s connection to the incidents was sufficiently proven. The record does not, however, support a finding that appellant’s participation was clear and convincing. Without such a connection, this highly damaging and prejudicial evidence should not be admitted.
2. Irrelevant prior conduct.
The prosecution was also permitted to introduce evidence of several incidents showing that appellant may have dealt poorly with other children and Maria. One witness testified that appellant threw a light, sponge ball into Maria’s face three times. More evidence was admitted that appellant told a witness that she had given Maria roast beef for lunch and she would not eat it, so she gave it to her for supper and she would not eat it. Appellant then allegedly gave her daughter the roast beef for breakfast and finally, lunch before Maria finally ate it. The witness describing this feeding event was permitted to speculate on whether the child had eaten other food at the time.
Witnesses described spanking and shaking incidents which were not serious. Testimony was permitted on other conduct not shown to be serious: incidents when the mother served food which appeared to be too hot; when on one of these occasions she “just sat there” when her daughter cried; and when appellant was seen dropping a meatball for a child to eat. A witness testified that when appellant put her day-care children in cribs for naps, she would lean over the crib and drop the children eight inches feet first into their cribs. Even as to appellant’s conduct on two occasions in lifting her daughter by the arm, it was not shown that appellant was attempting to harm the child.
The admissibility of this evidence is based upon an assumption that these incidents are relevant to prove motive for the taking the life of the child.1 They purport to at least show the relationship of appellant and her child. The evidence suggests parenting shortcomings, but it does not show malice and does not materially support the state’s contentions of an intention to hurt or a motive to kill. Without speculation on its meaning, it is not evident that this evidence shows a bad attitude of appellant or lack of attachment to her child. This evidence of her dealings with Maria was significantly more prejudicial than probative and was not admissible.
3. Conclusion
There is acute danger of prejudicial error in permitting “bad acts” evidence. The standard of Filippi, tracing to the Spriegl decision in 1965, must be tightly applied. See. State v. Spriegl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (1965). Permitting evidence of prior misconduct, even under the safeguards prescribed in these cases, is “potentially oppressive.” Id. at 494, 139 N.W.2d at 171. Here those safeguards were not employed, and it is abundantly evident that a difficult jury decision may have turned *768ultimately on irrelevant evidence tending only to assassinate appellant’s character.
The errors in this case might not be reversible in some cases, but they constitute reversible error here. Although I agree that the conflict in evidence of the experts alone is not such to, raise grave doubts on the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to support a guilty verdict, the evidentiary errors were likely determinative in an otherwise close case. We should reverse and remand for a new trial.

. More probative evidence, certainly admissible, included a physician’s characterization of appellant's attachment to the child. This testimony and similar descriptions of appellant’s attitude to the child should be distinguished from incidents not shown to manifest nonattachment.