context: Sebasky also argues the evidence from M.B. was not clear and convincing. However, the identity of the perpetrator was not at issue and the defense did not attempt to rebut M.B.'s testimony.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 373 N.W.2d 777, 781-82
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding the trial court's admission of other crime evidence despite some uncertainty in the witnesses' identification of the defendant
citation_a.sentence: Cf. State v. Coleman, 373 N.W.2d 777, 781-82 (Minn.1985) (upholding the trial court’s admission of other crime evidence despite some uncertainty in the witnesses’ identification of the defendant).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 505 N.W.2d 593, 602
citation_b.parenthetical: stating Spreigl evidence was proven by clear and convincing evidence because the defendant's identity was not in doubt and the victim testified about the incident
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Moorman, 505 N.W.2d 593, 602 (Minn.1993) (stating Spreigl evidence was proven by clear and convincing evidence because the defendant’s identity was not in doubt and the victim testified about the incident); State v. Raidner, 411 N.W.2d 490, 497 (Minn.1987) (finding Spreigl incidents were proven by clear and convincing evidence because there was eyewitness testimony, no rebuttal, and the identity of the participants was not in doubt). Sebasky’s current assertions that M.B. may have had some unspecified reasons for fabricating the incidents fails to show by itself that the evidence was not clear and convincing.