Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Monroe, 172 N.W. 313.

74 citing documents.

State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
See, e. g., State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 N.W.
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
State v. Swyningan 229 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1975
See, State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
E. g., State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 397 , ; United States v. Minieri (2 Cir.) 303 F. (2d) 550; Pearson v. United States (6 Cir.) 192 F. (2d) 681.
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
State v. Anderson 113 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1962
2 It has been recognized that such possession is evidence of guilt in State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , , and State v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 34 , .
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
State v. Connelly 82 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1957
9 State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Bock, 229 Minn. 449 , 39 N. W. (2d) 887 ; City of St.
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
State v. DePauw 74 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1955
See, State v. Schueller, 120 Minn. 26, 29 , ; State v. Shtemme, 133 Minn. 184, 186 , ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39, 43 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210, 211 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775, 776 ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , , rehearing denied, 146 Minn. 380 , .
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
State v. Gulbrandsen 57 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1953
527 ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 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
It is therefore competent to show that the defendant had been 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. Haney 18 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1945
State v. Haney 18 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 1945
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. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394, 398 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775 ; 20 Am.
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Sweeney 231 N.W. 225 Minn. 1930
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Whipple, 143 Minn. 403 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , 192
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. Oelschlegel 218 N.W. 117 Minn. 1928
State v. Oelschlegel 218 N.W. 117 Minn. 1928
State v. Johnson, supra, p. 513; State v. Monroe, 112 Minn. 391 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 131 , ; 16 C. J. 591.
State v. Johnson 217 N.W. 683 Minn. 1928
State v. Johnson 217 N.W. 683 Minn. 1928
State v. Peterson, 98 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Gesell, 137 Minn. 43 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Upson, 162 Minn. 9 , ; State v. McGraw, 163 Minn. 154 , ; State v. Lipman, 163 Minn. 431 , 204 N. W, 163; State v. Huber, 171 Minn. 429 , .
State v. Kiewel 217 N.W. 598 Minn. 1928
State v. Kiewel 217 N.W. 598 Minn. 1928
State v. Wilson, 72 Minn. 522 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Ettenberg, 145 Minn. 39 , ; State v. Friedman, 146 Minn. 373 , ; Albrecht v. Rathai, 150 Minn. 256 , ; State v. Hacker, 153 Minn. 538 , ; State v. Rosenberg, 155 Minn. 37 , ; State v. Horr, 163 Minn. 141, 148
State v. Golden 217 N.W. 489 Minn. 1928
State v. Golden 217 N.W. 489 Minn. 1928
State v. Etten-berg, 145 Minn. 39 , State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State v. Huber 214 N.W. 270 Minn. 1927
State v. Huber 214 N.W. 270 Minn. 1927
None of it violated the rule admitting evidence of other similar or related offenses announced in such cases as State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .
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. Ginsberg 208 N.W. 177 Minn. 1926
State v. Ginsberg 208 N.W. 177 Minn. 1926
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Summerland, 155 Minn. 395 , ; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 315 (341); 16 C. J. 406.
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. McGraw 203 N.W. 771 Minn. 1925
State v. Horr 203 N.W. 979 Minn. 1925
State v. Horr 203 N.W. 979 Minn. 1925
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , 172 N.W.
State v. McGraw 203 N.W. 771 Minn. 1925
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Upson 201 N.W. 913 Minn. 1925
State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Clark, 155 Minn. 117 , .
State v. Anderson 192 N.W. 934 Minn. 1923
State v. Anderson 192 N.W. 934 Minn. 1923
State v. Miller, 45 Minn. 521 , ; State v. Hoshaw, 89 Minn. 307 , ; State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , ; State v. Jatal, supra.
State v. Clark 192 N.W. 737 Minn. 1923
State v. Clark 192 N.W. 737 Minn. 1923
The events were so connected in time as to tend to show a general system or plan to commit crimes similar to the one charged and to render the evidence admissible as corroborative evidence under the rule of State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .
State v. Rosenberg 192 N.W. 194 Minn. 1923
State v. Rosenberg 192 N.W. 194 Minn. 1923
This evidence so connected the other transactions with the one here involved as to tend to prove a system or plan of operation, and the evidence was admissible as corroborative proof under the doctrine of State v. Monroe, 142 Minn. 394 , .