To ensure that the relationship evidence was used for its proper purpose, the district court should have specifically instructed the jury about the limited use for this evidence when the evidence was received and in its final instructions. State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 785 (Minn.App. 2008) (concluding that district court plainly erred by providing general instructions similar to those given here but failing to issue cautionary instruction specific to relationship evidence at time it was received); Meldrum, 724 N.W.2d at 21-22. In light of our decisions in Word and Meldrum, the district court's error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the proper use of the relationship evidence was plain.
State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010). Section 634.20 applies only in domestic-abuse cases, see State v. Barnslater, 786 N.W.2d 646, 650 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 2010), and "allows much more latitude" than the exception to rule 404(b), State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 784 (Minn. App. 2008). Because Boushee and N.B. were married at the time of the conduct at issue, section 634.20 applies.
Here, R.S. conceded during cross-examination that Sparkman did not threaten her during the September 20 telephone calls, and the state otherwise points to no conduct by Sparkman during the calls that constitutes domestic abuse under section 518B.01, subdivision 2. Instead, the state argues that "OFP violations in and of themselves constitute domestic abuse as that term is used in § 634.20" and asserts that this court should not apply the holding in Barnslater because it is contrary to this court's opinion in State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. App. 2008). We disagree.
In State v. Word, we subsequently held that "[i]n light of our decision in Meldrum, the district court should have issued cautionary instructions related to the proper use of relationship evidence, and the failure to do so represented error that was plain[,]" but such plain error did not require reversal because it did not affect appellant's substantial rights. 755 N.W.2d 776, 785 (Minn. App. 2008). In State v. Barnslater, we held that "[i]n light of our decisions in Word and Meldrum, the district court's error in failing to instruct the jury regarding the proper use of the relationship evidence was plain," but, like in Word, this plain error did not affect appellant's substantial rights.
Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 ; seeState v. Griller , 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998) (applying Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02 ); see alsoState v. Word , 755 N.W.2d 776, 782 (Minn. App. 2008) (applying the plain-error standard of review where the appellant raised a pretrial objection to relationship evidence, the district court made a preliminary ruling, and the appellant failed to object or request a limiting instruction when the evidence was later introduced at trial); State v. Meldrum , 724 N.W.2d 15, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2006) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan. 24, 2007).
But where, as with most of the challenged evidence here, a defendant has not objected to the evidence at the district court, we review only for plain error. State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 781 (Minn. App. 2008). We consider if there was an error, if that error was plain or obvious, and if the error affected the appellant's substantial rights.
James did not ask for such an instruction when the district court admitted the evidence and, therefore, we review the matter for plain error. See State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 787 (Minn. App. 2008) (applying plain-error review to unobjected-to failure to provide limiting instruction when admitting prior-conviction-impeachment evidence). An appellate court, "[i]n applying plain-error review, . . . will reverse only if (1) there is error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights."
"[E]videntiary objections should be renewed at trial when an in limine or other evidentiary ruling is not definitive but rather provisional . . . ." State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 782-83 (Minn. App. 2008) (interpreting Minn. R. Evid. 103(a) ("Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting . . . evidence . . . a party need not renew an objection . . . to preserve a claim of error.")). In Word, "[t]he district court issued a qualified ruling that incorporated the statutory limits on the scope of the relationship evidence."
“The plain error analysis allows an appellate court to consider an unobjected-to error that affects a criminal defendant's substantial rights.” State v. Kuhlmann, 806 N.W.2d 844, 852 (Minn.2011); see State v. Word, 755 N.W.2d 776, 787 (Minn.App.2008) (applying plain-error review to unobjected-to failure to provide an unsolicited limiting instruction regarding use of prior convictions); Minn. R.Crim. P. 31.02 (permitting review of plain error). “Under plain error analysis, we must determine whether there was error, that was plain, and that affected the defendant's substantial rights.
On appeal, Zinski argued that the district court committed an error that was plain when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of 634.20 evidence. In support of his argument, Zinski cited State v. Word , 755 N.W.2d 776, 785 (Minn. App. 2008), for the proposition that the failure to sua sponte instruct the jurors on the proper use of 634.20 evidence is an error that is plain. While Zinski’s appeal was still pending in the court of appeals, the court of appeals issued its opinion in State v. Melanson , 906 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. App. 2018).