DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spreigl, 139 N.W.2d 167.

754 citing documents.

  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
    Spreigl evidence is evidence of another crime, wrong, or bad act — the appellation is derived from our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
    404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Welch 675 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Welch 675 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2004
    Welch does not now question the introduction of this evidence under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , though he and the state disagree about the extent to which it supports his convictions.
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
    Such evidence may be admitted, however, “to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , ).
  • Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
    In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , we provided a five-prong test for evaluating when to admit such evidence: (1) the state must give notice of its intent to admit the evidence; (2) the state must clearly indicate what the evidence will be offered to prove; (3) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant parti
  • Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
  • Townsend v. State 646 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 2002
    In this case our focus is not on all evidence of the Johnson attempted murder, as some evidence of the attempted murder was admissible either as “immediate episode” evidence pursuant to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497 , or as other crime evidence relevant to the issue of identity or motive, pursuant to Minn. R. Evid.
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
  • Santiago v. State 644 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2002
    Evidence of other crimes or bad acts by a defendant offered to show identity, plan, knowledge, or modus operandi is commonly referred to as Spreigl evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
    In Minnesota, other crimes evidence is often referred to as Spreigl evidence after this court’s decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
    See, -99 (Minn.1995) (discussing criminal defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of evidence of defendant’s participation in other crimes); State v. Klotter, 274 Minn. 58, 62-63 , -72 (1966) (same); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490-97 , -73 (1965) (same).
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    -97 (Minn.1995); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
    Evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant in a criminal proceeding is referred to in Minnesota as Spreigi evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497 , ).
  • State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Blue 600 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97 , -73 (1965) (requiring notice when evidence includes other crimes or misconduct).
  • State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
    404(b) (mandating that evidence of other crimes or misconduct is not admissible to prove the defendant's character for the purpose of showing that he or she acted in conformity with that character); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
    404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 495-97 , -73 (1965) (discussing admission of prior bad acts by the defendant that tend to prove the defendant committed the crime); (discussing the admission of “reveYse-Spreigl ” evidence).
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    404(b), “a defendant may seek to introduce evidence of other crimes or misconduct of a third person to prove that the third person, rather than the defendant, committed the crime.” see generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    Such evidence, however, often referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , shall not be admitted in a criminal prosecution unless: (1) the evidence is clear and convincing that the person participated in the other offense; (2) the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the case; and (3) the probative value of the Spreigl evidence is not outweighed by its potent
  • State v. DeVerney 592 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1999
    Such evidence is commonly referred to as Spreigl evidence after this court's decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
    See generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
    Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of other bad acts, also known as Spreigl evidence, see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , is admissible to prove intent or absence of mistake or accident.
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
    Other crimes evidence, often referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after this court’s decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , shall not be admitted in a criminal prosecution unless: (1) notice is given that the state intends to use the evidence; (2) the state clearly indicates what the evidence is being offered to prove; (3) the evidence is clear and convincing that the defendant participated in the other offense; (4
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
    Other crimes evidence, often referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after this court’s decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , shall not be admitted in a criminal prosecution unless: (1) notice is given that the state intends to use the evidence; (2) the state clearly indicates what the evidence is being offered to prove; (3) the evidence is clear and convincing that the defendant participated in the other offense; (4
  • State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998