State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Concepcion, A15-1650

Background

Alfredo Concepcion was convicted in 2006 of sexual assault of C.C., completed treatment, and in 2014 was charged with third‑degree criminal sexual conduct and felony domestic assault for sexual abuse of his wife L.H.
At trial C.C. testified about the 2006 incident; both C.C. and L.H. described a similar sequence: Concepcion watched pornography, became sexually aggressive, anally penetrated them, orally penetrated while obstructing breathing, and the victims vomited.
The prosecution offered C.C.’s testimony as Spreigl (other‑acts) evidence to show a common modus operandi, not merely propensity, and the court instructed the jury on the limited purpose of that evidence.
Two prospective jurors (P. and V.S.) expressed concern about past sexual assault experiences/knowledge and initial impressions about recidivism; the court questioned and accepted both after rehabilitation assurances; Concepcion did not use peremptory strikes against them.
The district court excluded evidence that two other male housemates (witnesses) were convicted sex offenders; the defense argued this was relevant to impeachment and motive; the court ruled it irrelevant or cumulative.
The jury convicted Concepcion and found multiple aggravating factors; he was sentenced to 180 months and appealed, raising juror bias, admission of Spreigl evidence, and exclusion of housemates’ offender status.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether jurors P. and V.S. should have been struck for cause	Jurors had actual or implied bias from personal experiences and questionnaire answers; unable to be impartial	Court rehabilitated jurors; they affirmed they would follow instructions and be impartial; appellant didn’t use peremptories	No abuse of discretion: jurors were adequately rehabilitated and properly seated
Whether prior‑act (2006) testimony of C.C. was improperly admitted as Spreigl evidence	Prior act was admitted for propensity ("has a thing") and was overly prejudicial and remote in time/place	Testimony showed a marked similarity in modus operandi and was admissible to prove common scheme or plan; jury was instructed on limited use	No abuse of discretion: other‑act evidence admissible as modus operandi/common scheme with limiting instructions
Whether the prejudicial effect of the prior conviction outweighed probative value	Criminal sexual assault is uniquely prejudicial and should be excluded	Probative value strong given marked similarity; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice	No abuse of discretion: probative value outweighed prejudice; jurors presumed to follow instructions
Whether exclusion of evidence that housemates were convicted sex offenders violated right to present a complete defense	Evidence would impeach witnesses, show motive, and explain defendant’s conduct (protective locking)	Evidence didn’t show witnesses’ status was known to L.H., claimed witness denied sexual interest, and testimony about locking was addressed; evidence irrelevant or cumulative	No abuse of discretion: exclusion proper and not prejudicial to defense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013) (actual‑bias standard for juror challenges and need to view answers in voir dire context)
State v. Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 2015) (juror rehabilitation standard: unequivocal promise to follow court instructions)
State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676 (Minn. 2006) (standard for admitting Spreigl/other‑acts evidence and common scheme/m.o. analysis)
State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1998) (other‑act evidence need not be identical; similarity of defendant’s acts matters)
State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661 (Minn. 1998) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2003) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for evidentiary rulings and prejudice burden on appellant)