Facing a Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) charge in Minnesota is one of the most serious legal challenges anyone can experience. When prosecutors bring up your past sexual offense or prior accusation, the stakes become even higher. You may wonder—can they really use my past against me in court?
The answer depends on Minnesota’s rules of evidence, particularly how courts treat prior bad acts in sex crime cases. While the law generally limits what the jury can hear about your past, Minnesota has specific exceptions that allow prosecutors to introduce this type of evidence under certain conditions.
At Martine Law, we understand how devastating these accusations can be. Our attorneys help clients protect their rights and challenge the use of prejudicial evidence that could unfairly influence a jury.
General Rule: Prior Crimes Are Not Automatically Admissible
Under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b), known as the “Spreigl Rule” in Minnesota, evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts cannot be used to show that a person has a bad character or a tendency to commit crimes.
In other words, prosecutors cannot simply say, “You did it before, so you probably did it again.”
However, there are limited exceptions that allow such evidence to be admitted for other purposes—such as proving motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake.
When prosecutors try to use these exceptions in sex offense cases, it’s often referred to as “Spreigl evidence” (named after the case State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (1965)).
When Prior Sex Offenses Can Be Used Against You
Minnesota law allows the use of “relationship” or “pattern” evidence in certain Criminal Sexual Conduct cases. Prosecutors can sometimes introduce prior sexual misconduct or allegations to show a pattern of behavior, particularly under Minn. Stat. §634.20 and Minn. R. Evid. 404(b).
Here are the main circumstances where this can happen:
1. Pattern or Relationship Evidence
If the prior acts involved the same alleged victim or show an ongoing pattern between the defendant and victim, the court may allow this evidence to provide context or explain the relationship.
For example:
- A defendant accused of ongoing sexual abuse of a family member may have prior incidents admitted to show the “nature of the relationship.”
- The prosecution may argue the evidence helps the jury understand why the victim delayed reporting or continued contact.
2. Similar Conduct With Other Victims
Even if the prior acts involved different victims, the court may allow evidence if the prior conduct is strikingly similar to the current charges. This is often used in cases where prosecutors argue a common “modus operandi” (method of operation).
3. To Prove Intent, Knowledge, or Absence of Mistake
If the defense claims the incident was consensual or accidental, prosecutors might introduce prior sex offense evidence to argue that the defendant knew their actions were non-consensual or that it wasn’t a misunderstanding.
What the Court Considers Before Admitting Prior Acts
Before prosecutors can use this kind of evidence, they must file a notice and request a Spreigl hearing. At that hearing, the judge decides whether the prior acts are admissible.
The court will weigh factors such as:
- How similar the prior conduct is to the current charges
- How recent the prior act occurred
- Whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the prior act happened
- The probative value (its relevance to the case) versus its prejudicial effect (how unfairly it might influence the jury)
If the judge believes the evidence’s value outweighs the prejudice, it may be admitted—but with limits on how it can be presented.
Why This Evidence Is So Dangerous
While prosecutors claim Spreigl evidence helps juries understand context, it can easily bias jurors into thinking, “If they did it before, they probably did it again.”
That’s why Minnesota courts treat it with extreme caution. Even a single mention of a past allegation can change the entire tone of a trial.
Without a strong defense, this kind of evidence can make jurors focus on character rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
How Defense Attorneys Challenge Spreigl Evidence
At Martine Law, our attorneys aggressively challenge the admission of prior acts in CSC cases. Strategies include:
1. Filing Objections and Motions in Limine
We can argue that the prosecution’s notice was late, the evidence is too vague, or that it fails to meet the “clear and convincing” standard.
2. Arguing Unfair Prejudice
We emphasize that the evidence’s potential to bias the jury outweighs its relevance to the current charges.
3. Discrediting the Prior Allegation
We can show that prior incidents were unsubstantiated, based on unreliable witnesses, or resulted in no conviction.
4. Limiting Instructions
If the judge allows the evidence, we request a jury instruction clarifying that it cannot be used to prove the defendant’s character or likelihood to commit the current crime.
5. Cross-Examining Witnesses
If a prior accuser or investigator testifies, we cross-examine them to expose inconsistencies and weaken the credibility of the prior claim.
Can Old or Expunged Convictions Be Used?
Even old convictions can sometimes be brought up if the judge finds them relevant and not overly prejudicial. However, expunged convictions—those sealed from public record—generally cannot be used in a criminal trial.
Your attorney can file motions to exclude old, unrelated, or irrelevant convictions that the prosecution might try to use unfairly.
Protecting Your Rights in Sex Crime Trials
Sex crime cases are unlike any other. Minnesota law gives prosecutors wide latitude, but you still have powerful constitutional rights. A skilled defense lawyer can ensure that only legally admissible, properly supported evidence is presented to the jury.
At Martine Law, we defend individuals accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct across Minnesota. We focus on protecting your rights, challenging prejudicial evidence, and ensuring your case is judged on facts—not assumptions.
If you’ve been accused of a sex crime in Minnesota and fear that prior accusations or convictions might be used against you, contact Martine Law today. We’ll evaluate your case, explain your options, and fight to keep unfair evidence out of court.