Wrongfully Admitted Evidence of Past Criminal Convictions Leads to New Trial in State v. Bauer
In a significant win for criminal defendants with prior convictions, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned a conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct in State v Bauer. The appellate court ruled that the district court had improperly admitted evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts. This ruling strengthens the precedent against misuse of Spreigl evidence, indicating that Minnesota defense attorneys will have better odds at challenging the admission of prior convictions that risk unfairly biasing a jury.
In Bauer, the defendant was charged with allegedly touching a four-year-old girl inappropriately. Bauer was convicted and sentenced to over 14 years in prison. At trial, the district court allowed the prosecution to admit evidence of Bauer’s past criminal history, including convictions for possession of child pornography, violations of supervised release conditions prohibiting contact with children, and failure to register as a predatory offender.
In the landmark Minnesota Supreme Court case, State v. Spreigl, from 1965, the court set rules governing the admission of a defendant’s prior crimes or bad acts in Minnesota criminal trials. Simply put, prior convictions cannot be admitted to prove that a defendant is guilty of current charges against them. While such evidence cannot be used to show a defendant acted in conformity with past behavior, it can sometimes be allowed to prove motive, intent, opportunity, absence of mistake, or plan. Spreigl evidence is only admissible for these purposes when the prosecution can show that the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than character, is proven by clear and convincing evidence, and is more probative than prejudicial.
On appeal, Bauer’s defense successfully argued that the prosecution improperly introduced Spreigl evidence. The prosecution argued that Bauer’s past convictions and violations were relevant in proving intent or absence of mistake. However, Bauer’s defense to the allegations was that he did not commit the act whatsoever. Therefore, intent was not a contested issue, and the evidence was improperly admitted because it was not relevant to an identified material issue. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the evidence introduced by the prosecution at trial was more prejudicial than probative and that there was a “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” This ruling reminds Minnesota courts that they must be careful in scrutinizing Spreigl evidence before allowing its admission in trial. Furthermore, this ruling provides another precedent strengthening the idea that prior wrongs, crime, or acts should be admitted only in rare circumstances.
With the case remanded for a new trial, Bauer will have another chance to contest the charges against him without fighting an uphill battle against prejudicial and wrongfully admitted evidence of prior convictions. Moving forward, this ruling is a reminder that criminal defendants should receive a fair trial based on the facts of the case rather than their past mistakes.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in the Twin Cities and the state of Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Attorney Minneapolis MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer Wisconsin, Criminal Appeals Attorney Minnesota.