Cited by

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

755 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nathan Christopher Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “general exclusionary rule is grounded in the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 495, ).
State of Minnesota v. Humberto Acevedo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This type of evidence is known in Minnesota as “ Spreigl evidence.” See generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); see State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ruben Lucero Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); see also State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, 490-97, -73 (1965).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Gene Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, 493
State of Minnesota v. Erik Walden Narveson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
bt on the state’s claim of his guilt, the “reverse-404(b)” or “reverse- Spreigl” analysis would be appropriate, including consideration of whether the evidence would “establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan,” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, ).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97, -73 (1965).
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b); State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Justin Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan David Janssen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Before admitting Spreigl evidence, district courts should apply a following five-step analysis: (1) The state must give notice of its intent to admit the evidence; (2) the state must clearly indicate what the evidence 1 State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, (permitting the use of evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts for limited purposes).
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Jockieth Malone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]o become inadmissi ble, the presumptively admissible relationship evidence must be more than merely potentially prejudicial, and it must be more than merely potentially unfairly prejudicial.” State v. Andersen , (permitting the use of evidence of a defendant’s other bad acts for limited purposes).
State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Abdirahim Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
404(b), also known as Spreigl evidence under State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, is admissible when the following five conditions are met: (1) the state must give notice of its intent to admit the evidence; (2) t he state must clearly indicate what the evidence will be offered to prove; (3) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated
State of Minnesota v. Ramone Lamont Newell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 676, 685 (Minn. 2006); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490-91
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Neal Grengs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Jean Ryerson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
suggest[] that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate fo r punishment for his or her past acts.” (quotations omitted); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490, (providing the common-law exclusionary rule regarding prior crimes).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Bryce Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 492–94, d 167 at 170 –71 (1965).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Maurice Goode Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Zane Robert Stigen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
suggest[] that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for puni shment for his or her past acts.” (quotations omitted); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490, d 167, 169 (1965) (stating the co mmon law exclusionary rule).
State of Minnesota v. Randell James Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Sean Patrick Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 ).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Marlin Morey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, (permitting the use of evidence of other bad acts under limited circumstances), now set forth in Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Stephen Rierson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Galgalo Jarso Hache Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Scott Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Adam Oltz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Taylor Joseph Christianson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
Paul Ronny Barsness v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
On Augu st 3, a ppellant filed a motion to correct his sentence and a motion for reconsideration with the postconviction court , and then filed a pro se notice of appeal the 1 Under State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, 490, evidence showing that the defendant committed another crime unrelated to the crime for which he or she is on trial is generally inadmissible.
State of Minnesota v. Desean Lamont Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
suggest[] that the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.” (quotations omitted); see State v. Spreigl , 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Hilton Minn. Ct. App. 2017
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490-91
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Raymond Couch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490-91
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Chermack Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, 1 “The appellant challenging the admission of [404(b)] evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
404(b), is addressed in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deeforest Mentay Houston Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016