Admission of Relationship Evidence Is Not Limited to Prosecutions of “Domestic Abuse” Offenses Described Under 518B.01.2

State v. Barnslater, Minn.Ct.App., 8/17/10.  Mr. Barnslater had the misfortune of getting himself charged with felony pattern of harassing conduct against his girlfriend.  The state also charged him with violating an order for protection.  The trial court permitted the state to introduce relationship evidence under Minn.Stat. 634.20, which consisted of some of Mr. Barnslater’s past misbehavior towards his girlfriend which were not introduced as part of the pattern.

Mr. Barnslater complained that 624.20 cannot be utilized when the state has only charged either the pattern offense or violation of an order for protection.  Now, to make sense of this argument you have to keep flipping back and forth between two statutes:  634.20 and 518B.01, subd. 2.  Here’s the opening sentence of the 634.20 statute:

Evidence of similar conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic abuse, or against other family or household members, is admissible unless the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issue, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.  [Emphasis added.]

The statute goes on to say that “domestic abuse” is defined by Minn.Stat. 518B.01, subdivision 2, and is restricted to physical harm, bodily injury or assault; infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault; terroristic threats; criminal sexual conduct; or interference with an emergency call.  Mr. Barnslater pointed out that under the 518B.01 restrictions his girlfriend was not a “victim of domestic abuse,” because neither the pattern nor the protection offenses is on the list of “domestic abuse” offenses; the state could not, therefore utilize 634.20.

The appellate court upends the statute and says that admission of relationship evidence under the statute does not depend upon the particular offense charged in the case in which the evidence is offered.  Seemingly, the appellate court is saying that if the current victim was at some point a “victim of domestic abuse” the statute comes into play.  It’s the accused’s underlying conduct that determines the existence of “domestic abuse and not whether the current offense is listed in the definition of “domestic abuse.”

Having disposed of the legal issue, the appellate court moves on to uphold the admission of the relationship evidence.  Lastly, the appellate court reiterates that the trial court should instruct the jury about the proper use of relationship evidence both at the time it is admitted and during final instructions.  The trial court’s failure to give these instructions was plain error, but, alas, it did not affect Mr. Barnslater’s substantial rights, mostly because the state limited evidence of relationship to the fact of Mr. Barnslater’s previous convictions.  (Why does 624.20 get to trump Rule 609?)