Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496
State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
At length in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , we expressed our misgivings about this evidence and repeated that doubtful cases must be resolved in favor of excluding the evidence.
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1, 1985) (); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant argues that the State failed to comply with State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , now codified as Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497 , Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
*231 In this court, Jones contends that: (1) the plea negotiations between the state and witnesses Jesinoski and Custer violated his rights under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior crimes and bad acts under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , (3) he was denied his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; and (4) he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
at 227 ; see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Nutt 381 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Nutt 381 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , the Minnesota Supreme Court set forth specific guidelines for the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes or wrongful acts.
State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
7.02; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , (footnote omitted).
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
State v. Coleman 373 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 1985
404(b) as interpreted by this court in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Taylor 369 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Taylor 369 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Bissell 368 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1985
State v. Bissell 368 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1985
we stated that when admitting [State v.] Spreigl [ 272 Minn. 488 , ] evidence the trial court, on its own, should give a limiting instruction both when the evidence is admitted and as part of the final instructions to the jury.
State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Kanniainen 367 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
These matters were not Spreigl incidents which required a Spreigl notice, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
7.02; State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Appellant asserts that the admission of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , evidence was reversible error, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his guilt, and that he was improperly convicted of theft and receiving stolen property where he was also convicted of robbery.
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , evidence of other crimes or misconduct on the part of a defendant was held admis *397 sible but with extreme caution and appropriate safeguards.
State v. Becker 351 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1984
State v. Becker 351 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1984
Having determined that defendant was properly charged with multiple offenses occurring over a period of time, she was not entitled to a Spreigl notice since these acts were “part of the immediate episode for which defendant is being tried.” State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497
State v. Hagen 342 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hagen 342 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
The various Spreigl requirements, including the notice requirement, are set forth in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Conaway 319 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1982
State v. Conaway 319 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1982
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
State v. Darveaux 318 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1982
Defendant’s second contention is that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of other-crimes evidence of drug possession in violation of the safeguards established in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Loebach 310 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1981
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 2 Louisell & Mueller, Federal Evidence § 136 (1978); 1J.
State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
This court ruled that the state was not required to follow the Spreigl rule, stating “[w]e did not intend by our decision in State v. Spreigl [ 272 Minn. 488 , ] ..