Spreigl Evidence Improperly Admitted to Rebut Claim of Self Defense

State v. Welle, Minn.Ct.App., 5/27/2014.  Mr. Welle punched D.A. in the face outside a bar, some kind of guy thing after the two of them had been chatting up a group of women inside the bar.  D.A. fell back, his head struck the pavement, and he died without regaining consciousness.  The state charged Mr. Welle with unintentional second degree murder (assault injury), and with one count of first degree manslaughter.  Mr. Welle gave notice of his intent to raise a self defense claim.  In turn, the state wanted to admit Spreigl evidence of three prior incidents of assault and two incidents of domestic assault.  The trial court excluded the domestic assaults, but permitted the state to introduce evidence of the other three assaults.

First assault:  Mr. Welle called M.H. to make sure that he knew that his girlfriend was flirting with another man.  M.H. called Mr. Welle a loser.  Mr. Welle punched M.H. in the face.  Mr. Welle claimed that M.H. made the first move so that he had acted in self defense.

Second assault:  Mr. Welle wanted D.L. to change the oil in his car.  When D.L refused, Mr. Welle punched him in the face.  At first Mr. Welle denied punching D.L. but later admitted it.

Third assault:  During an argument between Mr. Welle and A.R. Mr. Welle shoved A.R., retrieved a knife and punched A.R. in the face.  Mr. Welle claimed that A.R. had swung a beer bottle at him and so he had acted in self defense.

The state said generally that it wanted to introduce these Spreigl acts to to rebut Mr. Welle’s claim of self defense.  More specifically, the state said that evidence of these events was admssible to show Mr. Welle’s intent and to show a common scheme or plan.  But Mr. Welle never denied that he intended to punch D.A. so his intent was not in issue.  The “common scheme” was to fabricate claims of self defense.  However, none of the Spreigl incidents disproved the elements of self defense in this instance.  Specifically, it did not disprove whether Mr. Welle acted aggressively toward or provoked D.A., whether he had an honest belief of danger from D.A. or reasonable grounds for that belief, or whether he had a reasonable possibility of retreat.  So, the trial court was wrong to admit this evidence.

And, its admission was unduly prejudicial.  The evidence showed that Mr. Welle had a propensity to act aggressively toward another while claiming that he was not at fault; the evidence thus “directly invited the jury to infer that in this instance, [Mr. Welle] was acting in conformity with that character.”  Oops.  Sounds like character evidence.

Mr. Welle gets a new trial.