Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Elli, 125 N.W.2d 738.

25 citing documents.

State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See (crimes four months apart); (crimes one night apart); (crimes remarkably similar and one month apart); (signature modus operandi); State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , (crimes in identical location, robber similarly masked and armed, and three months apart); (Minn.Ct.
State v. Posten 302 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1981
State v. Posten 302 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1981
7, Minn.R.Crim.P.; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
State v. Olek 179 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1970
State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 ; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .
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. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
The trial court received the evidence of the other robberies on the authority of State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 , which permitted such testimony to be introduced where the crime charged and another offense showed a common plan or scheme.
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. *430 (2d) 167; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 ; State v. Bock, 229 Minn. 449 , 35 N. W. (2d) 887 .
State v. Klotter 142 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1966
State v. Klotter 142 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1966
With respect to defendant’s first assignment of error, this court stated in State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 , that as a rule evidence connecting defendant to other crimes is not admissible, principally because it has a tendency to justify, to the jury, a finding of guilt irrespective of the charge on which he is being tried.
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
1 State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 39 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371, 377 ; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 201 , 134 N. W. (2d) 115, 125 ; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185, 188 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738, 740 .
State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
State v. Jordan 136 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1965
Whether prospective witnesses should be barred from the courtroom when not giving testimony is generally a matter to be determined by the trial judge, acting within the range of discretion defined in such recent cases as State v. Garden, 267 Minn. 97 , 125 N. W. (2d) 591 , and in State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .
State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , , 73 A. L. R. 380; State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .
State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
9 State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185, 189 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738, 741 .
State v. Lupino 129 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1964
State v. Lupino 129 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1964
See, State v. Elli, 267 Minn. 185 , 125 N. W. (2d) 738 .