Relationship Evidence Is Not Limited to the Relationship Between Defendant and Victim

State v. Valentine, Minn.Ct.App., 8/24/10.  One of Mr. Valentine’s girlfriends, J.K., was magnanimously giving him a ride to his new girlfriend’s place when the two got to arguing.  Independent witnesses said that Mr. Valentine pulled J.K.’s hair, pulled her out of the car then hit her in the face and neck.  J.K. ultimately recanted her accusations that Mr. Valentine had assaulted her. 

The trial court allowed the state to introduce evidence under both Minn.Stat. 634.20 and Spreigl that Mr. Valentine had twice assaulted his new girlfriend.  Mr. Valentine complained that the statute only permitted evidence against the victim’s family or household members, and not against every one of his other girlfriends and family members whom he’s assaulted over the years.  The appellate court reads the statute expansively to include all these other girlfriends and to reject Mr. Valentine’s parsimonious interpretation. So, if you assaulted Jane back in the day, you most likely assaulted Jenna this time around.  Propensity evidence, actually.

Mr. Valentine raised some additional evidence rulings, some of which the appellate court accepted but none of which entitled him to a new trial.  One of those issues that is gaining traction, is the admissibility of expert testimony on “counter-intuitive” behaviors of an alleged battered woman.  Here, an officer testified that it was “fairly common” for domestic abuse victims to recant the allegations of abuse.  The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony.  State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189, 193 (Minn. 1997).