Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ames, 96 N.W. 330.

47 citing documents.

State v. Gowan 214 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1973
State v. Gowan 214 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1973
See, also, State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
Thus, where it is necessary to prove the identity of a person, evidence of other similar crimes of the accused closely connected in time, place, and manner is admissible.” In State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183, 191 , , Mr. Justice Calvin Brown, later chief justice of this court, in considering admissibility of proof of similar acts constituting separate and distinct crimes under exceptions to the general rule, said: “The question as to the admissibility of evidence of this character has been before the
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
3 See, United States v. Segal (D. Minn.) 147 F. Supp. 506 ; Segal v. United States (8 Cir.) 246 F. (2d) 814, 818; State v. Madigan, 57 Minn. 425 , ; State v. Rose, 70 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Reilly, 184 Minn. 266 , ; State v. Hayward, 62 Minn. 474 , .
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
State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , (held admissible to show general plan or scheme, following State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , , where evidence of other crimes was held admissible if it tended corroboratively or directly to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged in the indictment on trial or some essential ingredient of such offense); State v. Sederstrom, 99 Minn. 234 , (admitted under a rule announc
State v. Martin 245 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1952
State v. Glazer 223 N.W. 769 Minn. 1929
State v. Glazer 223 N.W. 769 Minn. 1929
No attempt had been made by the state in its case to show any plan or scheme as was done in State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Oelschlegel, 173 Minn. 598 , .
State v. Kaufman 214 N.W. 785 Minn. 1927
State v. Kaufman 214 N.W. 785 Minn. 1927
State v. Lewis, 86 Minn. 174 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183, 196 , ; State v. Henriksen, 116 Minn. 366, 370 , ; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308, 320 , .
State v. Sabatini 213 N.W. 552 Minn. 1927
State v. Sabatini 213 N.W. 552 Minn. 1927
All the claims in question were for labor and material furnished within a period of about six weeks for the reconstruction of defendant’s building; and we think the evidence was clearly admissible for the purpose for which it was offered under the doctrine of such cases as State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Etten-berg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Horr,
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
State v. Eames 203 N.W. 769 Minn. 1925
It would be extending the application of the rule of State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , 96 N„ W. 330, and State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , , too far to hold that these facts bring the case within the scope of the rule there stated.
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , .
State v. Anderson 192 N.W. 934 Minn. 1923
State v. Anderson 192 N.W. 934 Minn. 1923
State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 262 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Dunn, 140 Minn. 308 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Townley, 149 Minn. 5 , , 17 A. L. R. 253.
State v. Morris 182 N.W. 721 Minn. 1921
State v. Morris 182 N.W. 721 Minn. 1921
The instructions relating to the effect of evidence of good character were similar to those approved in State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , .
In re Mason 181 N.W. 570 Minn. 1920
In re Mason 181 N.W. 570 Minn. 1920
State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Whipple, 143 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , .
State v. Whipple 173 N.W. 801 Minn. 1919
State v. Whipple 173 N.W. 801 Minn. 1919
Evidence of this character is admissible, if it is part of one plan or scheme carried on by defendant to wilfully violate the law, State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , , or if it tends to show an inclination or predisposition to commit the offense charged.
State v. Monroe 172 N.W. 313 Minn. 1919
State v. Monroe 172 N.W. 313 Minn. 1919
State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Sederstrom, 99 Minn. 234 , ; State v. Morgan, 129 La.
State v. Hartung 169 N.W. 712 Minn. 1918
State v. Hartung 169 N.W. 712 Minn. 1918
See State v. Ames, 90 Minn, 183, 192, .
State v. Dunn 168 N.W. 2 Minn. 1918
State v. Dunn 168 N.W. 2 Minn. 1918
State v. Evans, 88 Minn. 362 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Hunter, 131 Minn. 252 , ; Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565 , 14 Ann. Rep.
State v. Maddaus 163 N.W. 507 Minn. 1917
State v. Maddaus 163 N.W. 507 Minn. 1917
The eases relied on, State v. Sauer, 38 Minn. 438 , ; State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Hutchison, 121 Minn. 405 , , are not in point.
State v. Shtemme 158 N.W. 48 Minn. 1916
State v. Shtemme 158 N.W. 48 Minn. 1916
Somewhat similar language to that employed here was not permitted to disturb the conviction in State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , .
State v. Sailor 153 N.W. 271 Minn. 1915
State v. Sailor 153 N.W. 271 Minn. 1915
The following have some *92 similarity: State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , ; State v. Lucy, 41 Minn. 60 , ; Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , .
State v. Briggs 142 N.W. 823 Minn. 1913
State v. Briggs 142 N.W. 823 Minn. 1913
State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183, 192 , ; State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , .
State v. Hutchison 141 N.W. 483 Minn. 1913
State v. Hutchison 141 N.W. 483 Minn. 1913
State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183, 193 , .
State v. Peterson 108 N.W. 6 Minn. 1906
State v. Peterson 108 N.W. 6 Minn. 1906
The case comes within the-rule laid down in State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , , where-we held, after a thorough consideration of the question, that evidence of the commission of other crimes by the defendant is competent if it tends, corroboratively or directly, to establish his guilt of the crime-charged in the indictment on trial, or some essential ingredient there *212 of, and
State v. Ames 98 N.W. 190 Minn. 1904
State v. Ames 98 N.W. 190 Minn. 1904
In State v. Ames, 90 Minn. 183 , , the chief of police was indicted and convicted for taking a bribe in February, 1902, from one of the women who paid money to Gardner in December.