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.

  • State v. Wermerskirchen 497 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1993
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 492-93 , relying upon State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , and State v. Arradondo, 260 Minn. 512
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    404(b); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
  • State v. Berry 484 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
    Spreigl evidence takes its name from State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Appellant Virginia Frisinger challenges the admission of a prior conviction as State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn., evidence.
  • State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Robinson 476 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496 , (quoting 1 Wigmore, Evidence [3 ed.] §§ 193, 194).
  • State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The notice provisions set out in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497 , and Billstrom , 276 Minn, at 178, d at 284-85 , are premised on the idea that a defendant should be protected from the surprise introduction of other crimes evidence and allowed time to prepare to *909 defend against that evidence.
  • State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Johnson 463 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1990
    Johnson received the notice required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and Minn.R.Crim.P.
  • State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
    Pursuant to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and its progeny, evidence relevant under this rule is not admissible unless: the state gives notice of intent to introduce the evidence and specifies the evidentiary exception under which it seeks to admit the evidence; evidence establishing identity also relates to the time, place or modus op
  • State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
  • State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
    The state gave appropriate notice of intention to present evidence of two prior incidents involving appellant for the purpose of establishing a common modus operands See, e.g., State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Miggler 419 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The evidence is inadmissible for that purpose under the guise of Spreigl evidence, see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , or evidence admissible under Minn.R.Evid.
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    And it does show absence of mistake or intent and possibly a common plan or scheme.” See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
  • State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 493 , -71 (1965) (citing State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , ).
  • State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Anderson 414 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The state need not give notice of “offenses for which [the defendant] has been previously prosecuted.” Id; see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    7.02 codifies the rule in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and requires the prosecution to give notice of prior offenses it intends to use at trial.
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
    There is not the danger here that there was in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 495 , that the jury would punish the defendant for past acts even when it could not find the defendant guilty of the act charged.
  • State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987