Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Skogman, 213 N.W. 923.

16 citing documents.

Harden Ex Rel. Harden v. Seventh Rib, Inc. 247 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1976
Drew v. Carroll, 120 Minn. 478 , Campbell v. *30 Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284 , State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , Greene v. Mathiowetz, 212 Minn. 171
State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , ; State v. Jordan, 272 Minn. 84 , 136 N. W. (2d) 601 .
State v. Butenhoff 155 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1968
State v. Butenhoff 155 N.W.2d 894 Minn. 1968
In State v. Skogman, 171 Minn. 515, 516 , , the following instruction was given concerning a witness’ admission of his previous conviction of crime: “I believe there was also an admission on the part of one of the defendant’s witnesses, namely, Lewis, that he had previously been convicted of crime.
State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
4 See, State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186 , 48 N. W. (2d) 44 ; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , ; State v. Morris, 149 Minn. 41 , .
State v. Taylor 133 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1965
9 See, State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310 , 63 N. W. (2d) 1 ; State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39 , 41 N. W. (2d) 313 , 15 A. L. R. (2d) 1137; State v. Soltau, 212 Minn. 20 , 2 N. W. (2d) 155 ; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn 173, ; State v. Sailor, 130 Minn. 84 , ; State v. Newman, 127 Minn. 445 , .
State v. Anderson 78 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1956
It is true that whether a cautionary instruction should be given ordinarily rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, Mattfeld v. Nester, 226 Minn. 106 , 32 N. W. (2d) 291 , 3 A. L. R. (2d) 909; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , , but in a situation such as that presented here, it would seem that a failure to give such an instruction constituted material error.
State v. Johnson 67 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1954
But see, State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173, 174 , , indicating that assault with intent to commit rape is a lesser included offense of attempt to commit rape for the purpose of required instructions.
Mattfeld v. Nester 32 N.W.2d 291 Minn. 1948
State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , .
Greene v. Mathiowetz 3 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1942
dict him.” And the same thought is expressed in several of our cases, as, for example, Campbell v. Aarstad, 124 Minn. 284, 287 , , where we said: “The test of collaterality is: Would the cross-examining party be entitled to prove the fact as a part of his case tending to establish his cause of action or defense?” *174 To the same effect is State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173, 175 , .
State v. Soltau 2 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1942
State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , .
State v. Nelson 271 N.W. 114 Minn. 1937
In State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173, 174 , , the court said: .
State v. Cohen 263 N.W. 922 Minn. 1935
State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , , and cases therein cited.
State v. Hofmann 231 N.W. 411 Minn. 1930
State v. Hofmann 231 N.W. 411 Minn. 1930
State v. Wheat, 166 Minn. 300 , ; State v. Skogman, 171 Minn. 515 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
State v. Cox 215 N.W. 189 Minn. 1927
State v. Schomaker, 149 Minn. 141 , ; State v. Greenstein, 162 Minn. 346 , ; State v. Coon, 170 Minn. 343 , ; State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173 , ; State v. Lightheart, 153 Minn. 40 , 189 *