Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gress, 84 N.W.2d 616.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“specific instances of misconduct of the [witness] may be inquired into on cross-examination at the discretion of the trial judge if it is found that such acts are relevant and probative of veracity, and the probative value outweighs the risk of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, or unnecessary delay”); -24 (1957) (stating that, ordinarily, the district court has discretion to determine whether a witness’s credibility may be challenged on cross examination using a specific instance of conduc
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And “[the supreme court] ha[s] said emphatically that the fact that the accused takes the stand to testify does not put in issue his or her general character or propensities; that it opens up only the issue of credibility.” State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 344
State v. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
State v. Stewart 276 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1979
E. g., (per curiam); State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
State v. Hawkins 260 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1977
The trial court based its ruling on the standard rule that a witness who takes the stand does not place his character in issue, e. g., State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
State v. Martin 256 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1977
State v, McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
*403 See, State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 [1957].
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337
State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
State v. Shupe 196 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1972
3 , we said: “* * * Where * * * the impact of the prejudicial remark may be such as to impart to the minds of the jury substantial prejudicial evidence not properly a part of the case, it is taking too much for granted to say its effect can be removed by an instruction from the court.” See, also, State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , Chicago, M. & St.
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Hyleck 175 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 1970
State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 ; State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419 .
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash 158 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 1968
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 .
State v. Forichette 156 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1968
State v. Forichette 156 N.W.2d 93 Minn. 1968
Defendant, in contending that prejudicial error resulted with respect to state’s exhibit O, cites State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 ; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 ; and State v. *91 Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 .
State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 .
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
19 State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285, 298 , ; State v. Friend, 151 Minn. 138, 140 , ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 342 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616, 621 .
State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
7 State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 .
State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
State v. Huffstutler 130 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1964
State v. Silvers, 230 Minn. 12 , 40 N. W. (2d) 630 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Rutledge, 142 Minn. 117 , ; State v. Gandel, 173 Minn. 305 , ; State v. Gorman, 219 Minn. 162 , 17 N. W. (2d) 42 ; State v. Flowers, 262 Minn. 164 , 114 N. W. (2d) 78 .
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
State v. Zecher 128 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1964
As was made clear in State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 , interference with a defendant’s right to a fair trial necessarily moves the court.
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
State v. Currie 126 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1964
2 State v. Nelson, 148 Minn. 285 , ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; City of St.
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 .
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
State v. Flowers 114 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 1962
State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 347 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616, 624 ; State v. Gulbrandsen, 238 Minn. 508, 515 , 57 N. W. (2d) 419, 424 ; Petruschke v. Kamerer, 131 Minn. 320 , .
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
State v. Wofford 114 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 1962
Such is the common law.” The most recent statement on the subject is set forth in State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337, 346 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616, 623 , as follows: “* * * It is clear from our decisions that facts must exist furnishing proof of a common scheme or plan before the evidence as to related offenses or crimes will be received.
State v. Beltowski 98 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1959
State v. Beltowski 98 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 1959
Dehning v. Rigg, 251 Minn. 120 , 86 N. W. (2d) 723 ; State v. Gress, 250 Minn. 337 , 84 N. W. (2d) 616 ; State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; and Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 , 77 S. Ct. 1356 , 1 L. ed. (2d) 1479.