Convictions must be based on evidence. But is it fair to convict someone based on a bad reputation, old criminal history, or unrelated events?

This blog post explores why this kind of evidence is typically frowned upon and how evidence like this is nonetheless used in Court every day. In legal terms, the post considers the difference between character evidence and Spreigl evidence.

What is Character Evidence and why is it considered unfair?
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404 states: “Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith”. This is character evidence.

Thus, prosecutors generally cannot prove a crime by arguing that the Defendant is simply a bad person, fits the expected profile, or is a career criminal. Similarly, in an assault case, the prosecutor generally cannot argue that the Defendant is always hotheaded and angry.

Bad character evidence like this is considered too unfair. Courts decided long ago that simply slandering a Defendant on the stand risks wrongful convictions. It also risks violating Double Jeopardy protections by punishing someone twice for the same crime.

This makes sense. It is hard to look past someone’s history and judge them solely on the facts of the current case. For example, if Jack was convicted of stealing a car two years ago, that fact should have nothing to do with a car stolen yesterday. The old crime cannot be used as evidence to simply say “once a thief always a thief”.

Allowing that argument is considered too prejudicial. It does not acknowledge the ability of people to change. Moreover, the reasoning lends itself to abuse. There is a strong incentive to solve every crime. The community feels safer if every crime leads to an arrest. Politicians and law enforcement often seek funding or election based on their ability to secure convictions. Therefore, if a car is stolen in Jack’s neighborhood, why not arrest him and let the Court sort it out?

How is Spreigl different than character evidence?

Despite all these problems, evidence of past crimes and bad actions is used in Courts every day. In Minnesota, this evidence becomes admissible when a Spreigl exception applies.

Spreigl evidence is extremely powerful and often makes or breaks a criminal case. The word Spreigl comes from the Minnesota Supreme Court case that set the requirements for this type of evidence. It is also controlled by Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404.

As discussed above, the rule does not allow arguments simply calling a Defendant a bad person or saying Defendant punched another person, so he punched the victim in this case too. However, the rule continues and says such evidence may “be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”

These other purposes are what make Spreigl evidence different. Instead of simply calling the Defendant a criminal, the prosecutor is articulating a different, specific reason why the evidence is relevant to the case.

Consider motive. Character evidence says we generally cannot use evidence that a Defendant was in a fight last week to prove he assaulted someone today. However, if the prior fight involved the same person, then Spreigl evidence says it might be relevant to prove motive for the new assault.

Likewise, if the current charges are for breaking and entering, character evidence says we generally cannot use evidence that the Defendant previously engaged in shoplifting. But, Spreigl evidence says that if the prior shoplifting incident involved stealing tools later used to assist in the breaking and entering, then it may be used to prove preparation or planning.

How your Lawyer can fight against Spreigl evidence.

The issue with Speigl evidence is that we cannot guarantee a jury will not use it as character evidence. All the reasons why we dislike character evidence still exist, but the judge will tell the jury they cannot think about the evidence in that way. Then, we hope they listen.

However, if you are facing criminal charges, that is not a risk you want to take. Your lawyer can help try to keep Spreigl evidence out of trial. Your lawyer may convince the judge that the prosecutor’s real reason for admitting the evidence is simply to prove bad character and nothing more. Additionally, your lawyer may show that you were never given fair warning about the evidence or that the prosecutor failed to prove the other act occurred at all.

Fighting against Spreigl evidence is important and nuanced. Hiring an experienced defense attorney can maximize your chances of keeping this type of highly damaging evidence out of trial.

—

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime involving Spreigl evidence in Minnesota, don’t wait to get the legal help you need. Contact McKinney Defense today by calling (612) 300-1208 or filling out our online form to schedule a FREE consultation. Let me fight for your rights and help you take the first step toward fair representation.

Copyright © 2026 McKinney Defense PLLC. All rights reserved.

This blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in Minnesota or your jurisdiction. No information in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author or the law firm, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting based on any information included in or accessible through this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country, or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.