DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wofford, 114 N.W.2d 267.

94 citing documents.

  • State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 115
  • State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Watson 433 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 120
  • State v. Spencer 366 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Spencer 366 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 118
  • Berry v. State 364 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1985
  • Berry v. State 364 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1985
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , State v. Wheat, 166 Minn. 300 , 207 N.W.
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Fratzke 354 N.W.2d 402 Minn. 1984
    State v. Dinneen, 300 Minn. 354, 358-59 , State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 120
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
    *369 In State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 118 , we further stated that— [W]here two or more offenses are linked together in point of time or circumstances so that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other * * * [the evidence of the other crime] is admissible.
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Hill 253 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1977
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112
  • State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
    The prosecution cites the following cases in support of its position: State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , State *358 v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , and State v. Sweeney, supra.
  • State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 [1962].
  • 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
    The claim that there was prejudice because of the introduction of other crimes might be properly disposed of by our statements in State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112
  • State v. Madison 160 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Madison 160 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1968
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 .
  • 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. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Kotka 152 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1967
    State v. Minot, 79 Minn. 118 , ; State v. McClendon, 172 Minn. 106 , ; State v. Barone, 173 Minn. 232 , ; State v. Nichols, 179 Minn. 301 , ; State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 .
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Collins 150 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1967
    Defendant also cites State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 .
  • State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 .
  • State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Drews 144 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1966
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 .
  • State v. Klotter 142 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Klotter 142 N.W.2d 568 Minn. 1966
    1 State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 ; Note, 37 Minn. *63 L. Rev. 608.
  • State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Spreigl 139 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1965
    State v. Sweeney, 180 Minn. 450, 455 , , 73 A. L. R. 380; State v. Thompson, 241 Minn. 59, 67 , 62 N. W. (2d) 512, 519 ; State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 118 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267, 271 ; State v. Stuart, 203 Minn. 301, 306 , ; State v. Yurkiewicz, 212 Minn. 208, 210 , 3 N. W. (2d) 775, 776 ; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 305 , 61 N. E. 286, 299 , 62 L. R. A. 193.
  • State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
    In State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 117 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267, 271 , this court said: “It is well established that evidence that the accused has committed another crime unrelated and unconnected with the one for which he is on trial is inadmissible since it is not competent to prove one crime by proving another.” This rule, however, has certain exceptio
  • State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Hines 133 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1964
    As stated in State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112, 118 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 , 271: “It is well recognized that the ride excluding evidence of the commission of other offenses does not necessarily deprive the state of the right to make out its whole case against the accused on any evidence which is otherwise relevant upon the issue of the defendant’s guilt of the crim
  • State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
  • State v. Elli 125 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1964
    State v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , 114 N. W. (2d) 267 ; Note, 37 Minn. L. Rev. 608 .