Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (2026)

Evidence Of Conduct

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence of domestic conduct by the accused against the victim of domestic conduct, 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. "Domestic conduct" includes, but is not limited to, evidence of domestic abuse, violation of an order for protection under section 518B.01; violation of a harassment restraining order under section 609.748; violation of a domestic abuse no contact order under section 629.75; or violation of section 609.749 or 609.79, subdivision 1. "Domestic abuse" and "family or household members" have the meanings given under section 518B.01, subdivision 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 113 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. McCoy, 682 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 50× “In this case, we are asked to resolve whether evidence of similar conduct by the accused against an alleged victim of domestic abuse may be admitted against the accused under Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2002) without first being established by clear and convincing evidence.”

State v. Bell, 719 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 53× “Bell appealed his conviction to the court of appeals, claiming that the trial court erred when it permitted, under Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2004), the introduction of evidence of two previous incidents in which Bell violated an order for protection (OFP) involving the same victim.”

State v. Barnslater, 786 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 56× “14(d)(1) (2008), arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic abuse as relationship evidence pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 634.20. Alternatively, appellant argues that the district court committed reversible error by failing to…”

State v. Lindsey, 755 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 32× “Because Minn.Stat. § 634.20 permits relationship evidence of similar subsequent, as well as prior, conduct and because the probative value of the relationship evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence.”

State v. Valentine, 787 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 36× “, as relationship evi *635 dence under Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2008), (b) evidence of appellant’s prior assaults on B.”

State v. Meyer, 749 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 44× “In this appeal from a conviction of gross-misdemeanor domestic assault, appellant argues that the district court committed reversible error by (1) admitting evidence of prior domestic abuse under Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2004); and (2) failing to instruct the jury regarding the use…”

State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 18× “The district court allowed the State to introduce 12 incidents between Matthews and Larson, concluding *548 that all 12 were admissible under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 and that 6 were also admissible as alleged past acts of domestic abuse.”

State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 22× “tion; (2) seated a juror actually biased against the defendant; (3) denied Fraga’s motion for a change of venue; (4) admitted into evidence a newspaper article that referred to the first trial and included information about an alternative perpetrator; (5) precluded the testimony…”

State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2006). As our supreme court has noted, this statute removes evidence of similar prior conduct in domestic-abuse prosecutions from the clear and convincing standard of Minn.”

State v. McCurry, 770 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 29× “and appellant’s relationship was admissible under Minn.Stat. § 634.20 (2006), despite conceding that the conduct underlying appellant’s charges did not qualify as domestic abuse.”

State v. O'MEARA, 755 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 30× “At his November 2006 jury trial, O’Meara stipulated to the April 2004 conviction for purposes of the five counts involving harassment and violation of a restraining order, but moved the district court to prohibit the state from introducing relationship evidence pursuant to…”

State v. Gutierrez, 667 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 8× “At trial, the evidence Gutierrez now complains about was found to be admissible on two grounds: (1) under Minn.Stat. § 634.20, as evidence of similar conduct by the accused against other family or household members; and as (2) non- Spreigl relationship evidence.”

Show all 113 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.