Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ernest Henry Chouinard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
404(b); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he same reasoning underlying the requirements spelled out in Forsman [for evidence admitted under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ] applies in the case of Rule 609 impeachment evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
6 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is characterized as “Spreigl evidence” after the supreme court’s decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
404(b); see also State v. 2 This evidence is referred to in Minnesota as Spreigl evidence after State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dayna Kristine Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ve instruction to the jury that the USDA employee’s statement about Bell wrapping a puppy in a wet rag and putting it in the freezer was to be disregarded.7 “Ordinarily, evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts of a defendant is not admissible to show behavior consistent with the character of that defendant.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ) (other citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
404(b); see generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
404(b), which is also known as “Spreigl evidence,” after State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
st be met: (1) the state must give notice of its intent to admit the evidence; (2) the state must clearly indicate what the evidence will be offered to prove; (3) the defendant’s involvement in the act must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; (4) the evidence must be relevant and material to the state’s case; and (5) the probative value of the evidence must 1 State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
Griffin also argues that Kim's statement contained opinion testimony accusing Griffin of the crime of stalking without meeting the procedural requirements of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hawes v. State 826 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
See generally State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97 , -73 (1965) (requiring that a defendant receive written notice of the additional crimes or misconduct that the prosecution seeks to prove at trial).
State v. Brown 815 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , we discussed the State’s use against the defendant of the defendant’s prior criminal behavior.
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , Minn. R. Evid.
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Such evidence heightens the concern that a defendant will be convicted not because of the charged conduct but “because he has escaped unpunished from other offenses.” State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97 , we held that "where the state seeks to prove that an accused has been guilty of additional crimes and misconduct on other occasions,” the state must, "within a reasonable time before trial ...
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Minnesota caselaw has used the term extrinsic to refer to acts that are subject to the analysis set forth in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
Tscheu does not refer to the procedural safeguards we adopted in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , regarding the admissibility of other- *862 crime evidence pursuant to Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
404(b), otherwise known as the Spreigl rule, states that “[e]vidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” See also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts by a defendant offered for the limited purpose of showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common scheme or plan is commonly referred to as Spreigl evidence after our decision in State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
404(b), and State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008