State v. Zinski

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether the district court committed reversible error when the court did not, sua sponte, give a limiting instruction regarding the proper use of relationship evidence admitted under Minn. Stat. § 634.20 (1996).1 The State charged respondent *274Danny Lee Zinski with first-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. At trial, the district court admitted 634.20 evidence2 without sua sponte instructing the jurors on the proper use of that evidence. On appeal, Zinski argued that the district court committed an error that was…