" As stated in State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404, 237 N.W.2d 609, 616 (1975), "The purpose underlying the Spreigl notice procedure is to ensure that a defendant is not forced to defend himself against unexpected testimony of prior offenses." And as stated in State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978), the rationale for the exception for previously prosecuted crimes is that "normally one can presume that the defense will not be surprised at trial if the state offers evidence of a relevant crime for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." The same rationale supports the exception for other offenses committed as part of the same occurrence or episode.
Accordingly, we will not discuss this issue. Regarding Tscheu's claim that the State did not give proper notice, we presume that "the defense will not be surprised at trial if the state offers evidence of a relevant crime for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978). But the State nonetheless must give advance notice of its intent to introduce prior conviction evidence if the defendant requests discovery. Minn. R.Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 1(5). Tscheu requested discovery of certain evidence, but did not include his criminal record in the request.
Here, Anderson was charged by complaint with the 1985 offense. Even with the exception for previously-prosecuted offenses, the prosecution must give notice of such offenses if the defendant requests discovery under Minn.R.Crim.P. 9.01. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978). Anderson requested discovery under Rule 9.
For example, the state must disclose other crimes for which defendant was previously prosecuted. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638-39 (Minn. 1978). (iii) The prosecutor must specifically articulate to the trial court how the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case, and demonstrate that the purpose of the evidence is not improper. Billstrom, 276 Minn. at 178, 149 N.W.2d at 284.
State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 170 N.W.2d 104 (1969); that the State was obligated to comply with defendant's discovery demand pursuant Rule 9. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1978); and that the State's letter dated November 7, 1983, acknowledged by defendant, satisfied the discovery demand. The court's finding that evidence of a prior incident where appellant held a knife to the victim's throat was clear and convincing is supported by the record.
Upon a discovery demand the state must disclose evidence it might offer on "additional offenses" arising in the same episode. See Minn.R.Crim.P., Rule 7.02; State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1978); State v. Johnson, 322 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 1982). Describing testimony on a bottle of brandy as evidence of an additional offense, defendant claims he was entitled to written disclosure the testimony might be offered.