Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
Defendant argues that the cross-examination was improper because the state failed to give notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other crimes as required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Lynard 294 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1980
State v. Lynard 294 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 1980
State v. Grilli, 304 Minn. 80 , State v. Spreigl, *324 272 Minn. 488 , R. 404(b), R.Evid.; 2 J. Weinstein, Evidence— United States Rules, § 404[08] at 404-444 (Supp.1979); Annot., 61 A.L.R.3d 293 , § 7(c) (1975).
State v. Leecy 294 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1980
State v. Leecy 294 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1980
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497 , Rule 7.02, R.Crim.P.
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
Defendant also argues that the introduction of three of the robbery charges against him (excluding the Red Owl charge) was reversible error because no formal written notice was filed with the trial court, as required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and as codified in Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Matteson 287 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1979
State v. Matteson 287 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1979
In State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178 , we summarized the applicable procedures in these cases as follows: (a) Evidence of other crimes may not be received unless there has been notice *411 as required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496 , .
State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , Rule 404(b), Minnesota Rules of Evidence.
State v. Wakefield 278 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1979
State v. Wakefield 278 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1979
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. Waukazo 269 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1978
State v. Waukazo 269 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1978
As defendant points out, in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , this court stated that the Spreigl notice must describe the other offenses with the particularity of an indictment or information.
State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
State v. Marsyla 269 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1978
' It would be improper for you to be permitted to infer otherwise, and you are categorically instructed to disregard the same in its entirety, and it is ordered to be stricken.” The claim that this testimony should have been noticed in advance under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , is questionable.
State v. DeVere 261 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
State v. DeVere 261 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497
State v. Ruud 259 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977
State v. Ruud 259 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
225 (1930); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 492, note 9
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
In addition, defendant asserts that he was not properly notified prior to trial of the prosecution’s intent to introduce this testimony as required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
The court in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178 , required: “(a) Evidence of other crimes may not be received unless there has been notice as required by State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496 , .
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
State v. Vance 254 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1977
At trial, the state introduced testimony of a similar offense by defendant for purposés of establishing a common scheme, plan, modus oper-andi, or intent, following notice pursuant to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Van Kempen 250 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1977
State v. Van Kempen 250 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 497
State v. Morgan 246 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1976
State v. Morgan 246 N.W.2d 165 Minn. 1976
t among which evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove the accusation when it tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) the identity of the accused, (5) sex crimes, (6) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of similar crimes so related to each other that proof of one or more of such tends to establish the accusation.” In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , we indicated that the admissibility of evidence of other crimes turns on whether the
State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
State v. Yaedke 242 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1976
2 See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , holding that in criminal prosecutions evidence that an accused has been guilty of additional crimes and misconduct on other occasions, although otherwise admissible under some exception to the general exclusionary rule, shall not be admissible unless within a reasonable time before trial the
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
Defendant next argues that reversible error occurred when evidence of defendant’s homosexuality and his homosexual relationship with Douglas Grotte was admitted without proper notice *404 under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and without a cautionary instruction under State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Grilli 230 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1975
State v. Grilli 230 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 1975
We are presented with the question of whether the evidence was admissible without pretrial notice pursuant to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Leinweber 228 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1975
State v. Norgaard, 272 Minn. 48 , State v. West, 285 Minn. 188 , State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
Our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , expressly excluded the requirement of prior notice whenever the evidence is of other offenses which are a part of the same episode for which defendant is being tried.
State v. Hebert 202 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1972
State v. Hebert 202 N.W.2d 884 Minn. 1972
See, State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488