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