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. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
    State v. Fitchette, 88 Minn. 145 , State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Martin 199 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Martin 199 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1972
    Defendant also contends that the trial court violated the so-called “Spreigl rule” (see, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , [1965]) when it admitted evidence that after the incident at the motel defendant forced his ex-wife to leave the motel with him and, in the process, slapped her in the face.
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Martin 197 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1972
    See, State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91 , 74 N. W. (2d) 297 .” See, also, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , *128 (1965); State v. Huffstutter, 269 Minn. 153 , State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294
  • State v. Arnold 196 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Arnold 196 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1972
    1 State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Whelan 189 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1971
    Finally, defendant alleges a violation of the rule of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , 2 based on the *88 following answer by the victim’s mother to the prosecutor’s question about a conversation with the victim: “Q. And the other things that she told you; is that all she told you?
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
    In view of the fact that the testimony of Miss Nordstrom was properly admissible in rebuttal for impeachment, the issue as to the applicability of the pretrial notice provisions of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 , is rendered moot.
  • State v. Clough 185 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Clough 185 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1971
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , *528 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Bishop 183 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 1971
    In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , we established similar procedure with respect to “other crimes” evidence.
  • State v. Gravening 182 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Gravening 182 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1970
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Hawn 182 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Hawn 182 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1970
    A fourth claim dealing with the sufficiency of the Spreigl notice (State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. [2d] 167) was withdrawn at oral argument.
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Ambuehl 176 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Ambuehl 176 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1970
    At the time of defendant’s arraignment the state gave notice, pursuant to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , of its intent to introduce evidence of additional crimes of which defendant was purportedly guilty.
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
  • State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
    Weinzetl had not seen defendant at any time after the draft was cashed, *421 but he had seen his picture on the day he made the identification to the police from the “mug shots.” Having given the requisite notice under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , the prosecution proved that on or about October 26, 1966, another forged draft of State Farm was cashed at Lorence Recreation, a bar and bowling alley in St.
  • State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Boykin 172 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 1969
    1 See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Kortness 170 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Kortness 170 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 1969
    Whatever requirements of notice which might have been necessary under our decision of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , were complied with.
  • State v. Boyce 170 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Boyce 170 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1969
    We did not intend by our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , to require a “Spreigl notice” as a condition to the admissibility of evidence bearing directly on the history of the relationship existing between one accused of murder and the victim.
  • State v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Hansen 169 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1969
    r. Finally, we view the evidence of the needle marks on her arms as a physical condition existing at the time of her arrest tending to prove the crime charged and not, as defendant argues, as evidence submitted by the prosecution with a design to prove that defendant had previously been convicted of a crime involving narcotics, thus requiring a pretrial notice in compliance with State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
  • State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
    1 See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167, 173 ; State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30 , 133 N. W. (2d) 371 ; State v. Drews, 274 Minn. 426, 430 , 144 N. W. (2d) 251, 254 .
  • State v. Tribblet 162 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Tribblet 162 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1968
    State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 ; State v. Anderson, 272 Minn. 384 , 137 N. W. (2d) 781 .
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
    The admission into evidence without formal notice to defendant of the indecent assault upon Patricia Morawiecki neither resulted in prejudice nor was improper under the exception set forth in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , permitting evidence of an offense'which is part of the immediate episode out of which the offense for which the defendant is being tried arose.
  • State v. Houge 159 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Houge 159 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 1968
    1(1), violates the single-subject and title requirements of Minn. Const, art. 4, § 27, and is unconstitutionally vague; and that the evidence relating to the check made payable to Charles Jewelry was inadmissible because the notice of intent to use evidence of other crimes did not comply with the State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , requirement that such notice must be given a “reasonable time” before trial.
  • State v. Olson 156 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1968
  • State v. Olson 156 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1968
    1 State v. Haney, 219 Minn. 518 , 18 N. W. (2d) 315 ; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 .
  • State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
  • State v. Billstrom 149 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
    State v. Elli, supra; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 ; State v. Sorg, 275 Minn. 1 , 144 N. W. (2d) 783 .
  • State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
  • State v. Sorg 144 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1966
    See, also, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , where we laid down new rules regarding prior related offenses.
  • 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 .