State v. Maurer

I agree the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Spreigl evidence. However, I conclude the trial court’s decision to allow questions concerning the sincerity of the complainant was not reversible error when viewed in the context of the testimony of the witnesses.

The intent of the prosecution in asking questions about sincerity was to elicit information concerning the perception of the witnesses regarding the physical and emotional condition of the complainant at the *838time she reported the alleged assault. See State v. Coleman, 426 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.App.1988) (question as…