Category Archives: EVIDENCE

Admissibility of Defendants Prior Bad Acts Including Relationship Evidence (12-06)

Posted on October 19, 2012 | Leave a comment

QUESTION: To be Admissible, Evidence of Prior Bad Acts of Defendant, including Defendant’s Relationship with the Victim, Must Fit within 1 of 4 Exceptions to the General Rule Prohibiting Evidence of Bad Character.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton12.06-Admissibility_of_Defendants_Prior_Bad_Acts

Leave a comment

Posted in Domestic Violence, EVIDENCE, Prior Bad Acts & Relationship Evidence, Relationship Evidence

Tagged , , , , ,

Spriegl Evidence – 5 Step Process (12-04)

Posted on April 30, 2012 | Leave a comment

QUESTION: STATE FILES A MOTION-IN-LIMINE SEEKING ADMISSION OF SPREIGL EVIDENCE. WHAT 5 STEP PROCESS MUST THE COURT FOLLOW IN REACHING A DECISION?

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton12.04-Spriegl_Evidence-5_Step_Process_Amended

Leave a comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Spriegl - 5 Step Process

Tagged , ,

Admissibility of Pre-Arrest Silence (11-16)

Posted on October 14, 2011 | 1 comment

WHEN RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DEFENDANT’S PRE-ARREST, PRE-MIRANDA SILENCE (FOR USE IN THE STATE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF) THERE ARE 4 PRIMARY QUESTIONS THE COURT MUST ANSWER.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton11.16-Admissibility_of_Pre-Arrest_Silence

1 Comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Pre-Arrest Silence

Tagged , ,

Rape Victim Myths – Expert Testimony; Supreme Court Clarification (11-15)

Posted on September 28, 2011 | Leave a comment

QUESTION: During A Criminal Sexual Conduct Jury Trial In Which Defendant Claims Consent, The Prosecution Attempts To Introduce Expert Testimony To Describe And Explain ‘Counterintuitive Rape Victim Behaviors’ (Common Rape Myths) Exhibited By Adult Victims Of Sexual Assaults. What are these common rape myths?

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton11.15-Rape_Victim_Myths

Leave a comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Rape Victim Myths - Expert Testimony

Tagged , , , , ,

IMPEACHMENT – PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS (11-14)

Posted on September 12, 2011 | Leave a comment

The Minnesota Supreme Court Recently Issued A Decision Of 1st Impression On The Use Of “UNSPECIFIED FELONIES” Which Significantly Impacts The Use Of Prior Convictions For Impeachment Purposes. This Training Update Replaces Update #10-19, Dated October 25, 2010. The Updated Section Is On Page 2, Paragraph #3, Labeled “NEW RULE – UNSPECIFIED FELONIES”. State v. Hill, AO9-1947, August 24, 2011.

QUESTION:   Prior To Trial The State Files A Motion-In-Limine Seeking To Impeach Defendant (Should He Decide To Testify) With Several Prior Felony Convictions, All Occurring Within The Past 10 Years And None Constituting A “Crime Of Dishonesty Or False Statement”. What Balancing Test Must The Court Apply And What 5 Specific Findings Must The Court Make (On The Record) To Properly Rule?

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton11.14-Impeachment-Prior_Felony_Convictions

Leave a comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Impeachment - Felony Conviction, Impeachment - Prior Felony Conviction, TRIAL ISSUES

Tagged , ,

Battered Woman Syndrome (10-13)

Posted on June 15, 2010 | 1 comment

QUESTION: During A Criminal Sexual Conduct (Rape) Jury Trial Involving A Battered Woman Relationship, The Prosecution Attempts To Introduce Evidence Of The “Battered Woman Syndrome” To Explain:

1. Why Some Victims Fail To Timely Report Crimes;

2. Why Some Victims Often Recant Testimony;

3. Why Some Victims Refuse To Leave Abusive Relationships,

What Is The “Battered Woman Syndrome” And What 4 Step Analysis Should The District Court Follow When Ruling On Admissibility?

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton10.13-Battered_Woman_Syndrome

1 Comment

Posted in Battered Woman Syndrome, Battered Woman Syndrome, Domestic Violence, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, EVIDENCE

Tagged , , , ,

Residual Hearsay Exception Rule, Minn. R. Evid. 807 (10-12)

Posted on June 1, 2010 | Leave a comment

QUESTION: THE MORNING OF TRIAL YOU ARE ASKED TO RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A HEARSAY STATEMENT UNDER THE RESIDUAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (Minn. R. Evid. 807). WHAT IS THE RESIDUAL HEARSAY EXCEPTION RULE AND WHAT 6 STEP ANALYSES MUST YOU FOLLOW TO PROPERLY RULE?

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton10.12-Residual_Hearsay_Exception_Rule

Leave a comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Hearsay - Child Statements

Tagged , , , , ,

Determining Admissibility of Hearsay – Crawford v. Washington (10-08)

Posted on April 12, 2010 | Leave a comment

The Morning Of Trial, While Addressing Motions-In-Limine, You Are Asked To Rule On The Admissibility Of A Hearsay Statement For Use In The State’s Case In Chief. The Following Is A Seven Step Analysis The Court Should Apply In Determining Admissibility Of Any Hearsay Statement Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); see State v. Cox, A08-145 March 18, 2010.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

Pendleton10.08-Determining_Admissibility_of_Hearsay-Crawford

Leave a comment

Posted in EVIDENCE, Hearsay - Child Statements

Tagged , , , ,