Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fitchette, 92 N.W. 527.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145, 148 , State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
3 State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145, 148 , .
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
§§ 193, 194.” To the same effect is State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Cole, 240 Minn. 52, 58 , 59 N. W. (2d) 919, 922 .
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
4 See, also, State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Fournier, 108 Minn. 402 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn 518, 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
8 State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
said ( 219 Minn. 521 , 18 N. W. [2d] 317): “As another exception, evidence of a separate and independent crime is admissible if such crime is definitely the outgrowth of a plan or a system of similar crimes and such ‘evidence is admissible, not to establish the other crime, but as confirmatory of the evidence tending to show the commission by defendant of the one on trial.’ ” State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 5 Dunnell, Dig.
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
272 ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , 92 N.W.
City of St. Paul v. Greene 56 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1952
City of St. Paul v. Greene 56 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1952
een engaged in practicing like or similar cheats, as tending to prove a criminal intent.” In State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , , we said: “The contention of defendant is that the evidence tended to prove the commission of other independent crimes, was an indirect .attack upon his character, and therefore inadmissible under the rule stated and applied in the Fitchette case [ 88 Minn. 145 , ], supra.
State v. Yurkiewicz 3 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1942
State v. Yurkiewicz 3 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1942
None of the exceptions were present in State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; hence evidence of other crimes was there held inadmissible.
State v. Stuart 281 N.W. 299 Minn. 1938
State v. Stuart 281 N.W. 299 Minn. 1938
It is that “evidence of a distinct and independent offense cannot be admitted on the trial of a defendant charged with a criminal offense” because such admission “Avould be to oppress a defendant by trying him for an offense of which he has had no notice, and for which he is unprepared, * * *” State v. Austin, 74 Minn. 463, 464 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 16 C. J. p. 586 [§ 1132], There are well established exceptions to that rule, however, Avhich *307 we have, in harmony with other
State v. Nuser 271 N.W. 811 Minn. 1937
State v. Nuser 271 N.W. 811 Minn. 1937
Undoubtedly an indictment should be so worded as to charge the particular offense of which complaint is made against the defendant (State v. Henn, 39 Minn. 464 , ) in order that the accused will be apprised of the nature of the charge, State v. Nelson, 74 Minn. 409 , ; State v. *317 Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
This connection and such system was not shown in State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , 92 U. W. 527, upon which defendant herein places much reliance.
State v. Abdo 206 N.W. 933 Minn. 1926
State v. Abdo 206 N.W. 933 Minn. 1926
See State v. Miller, 151 Minn. 386 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Taylor, 144 Minn. 377 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , .
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Clark 192 N.W. 737 Minn. 1923
State v. Friend 186 N.W. 241 Minn. 1922
State v. Friend 186 N.W. 241 Minn. 1922
State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , .
State v. Pugliese 182 N.W. 958 Minn. 1921
State v. Pugliese 182 N.W. 958 Minn. 1921
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Lyons, 144 Minn. 348 , ; State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 8 R. C. L. 197.
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
State v. Nelson 181 N.W. 850 Minn. 1921
State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , ; 1 Jones, Ev.
State v. Friedman 178 N.W. 895 Minn. 1920
State v. Friedman 178 N.W. 895 Minn. 1920
The admission of evidence to show the swindle perpetrated on Harris is assigned as error upon the authority of State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Monroe 172 N.W. 313 Minn. 1919
State v. Monroe 172 N.W. 313 Minn. 1919
The main question in the case centers around the contention that the court improperly admitted a. large amount of evidence tending, and in fact showing, the participation in or commission of other like crimes by defendant, in' violation of the rule stated in State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , '?'.
State v. Newell 159 N.W. 829 Minn. 1916
State v. Newell 159 N.W. 829 Minn. 1916
The proper application of this rule of evidence does not infringe upon the general rule, illustrated by State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , , and other cases, that it cannot be shown that the accused has committed other *387 crimes.
State v. Ames 96 N.W. 330 Minn. 1903
State v. Ames 96 N.W. 330 Minn. 1903
The decision in State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , , is relied upon as sustaining the position.