Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490, d 167, 169 (1965).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ).
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Though sometimes admissible, other-crimes evidence, often referred to as Spreigl evidence, is disfavored because it is “potentially oppressive,” State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 494, and creates a risk that the jury will “convict[] a defendant for crimes with which he is not charged.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 177
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Henry Davila Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry Davila Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Anthony Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97, -73 (1965).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.2, 193 (Minn. 1996); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b) (2014); State v. 3 Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490–91
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
duct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.” -01 (Minn. 2005) (noting that the “overarching concern” regarding Spreigl evidence is its potential use for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has the propensity to commit a crime); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, (addressing prior-bad-acts evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Leontay Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lonnie Bell Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, d 167, 169 (1965).
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490–91
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, ).
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
404(b) (providing for the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence only to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Spriegl, 272 Minn. 488, 493, see State v. Doty, 167 Minn. 164, 166, 208 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
For example, evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible for non-character purposes such as proving the defendant’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See id.; see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491–94, –72 (1965).