DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Billstrom, 149 N.W.2d 281.

226 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    In cases involving Spreigl evidence, Minnesota caselaw suggests that “[b]oth at the time the evidence is received and in the final charge, the court should admonish the jury that the testimony is received for [a] limited purpose.” 285 (Minn. 1967).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    The legal rule at issue here states that when the district court receives other-acts 13 evidence it must, “[b]oth at the time the evidence is received and in the final charge,” instruct the jury that the testimony is received for a limited purpose and that the defendant “is not being tried and may not be convicted for any offense except that charged.” see Minn. R. Evid.
  • 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. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178, (“At the time the evidence is offered, the prosecutor shall specify 4 the exception to the general exclusionary rule under which it is admissible.”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A district court “should admonish the jury” both at the time the evidence is received and in the final charge that the Spreigl evidence is received for only a specific limited purpose and that the defendant “may not be convicted for any offense except that charged.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967); Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 496-97 , d at 172-73 .
  • 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. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Broulik, d at 68 (quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , ).
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
    He argues that the Spreigl evidence is inadmissible because the state’s case was not “weak.” We have previously held that “[e]vidence of other crimes is admissible only if the trial court finds that the direct or circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that the evidence is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
    -01 (Minn.2005) (citing State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967)).
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Cumulative Evidence Appellant contends that the evidence was cumulative and that Spreigl evidence “should be excluded where it is merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning [a] defendants character or for indicating to the jury that he is a proper candidate for punishment.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    ere it is merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning a defendant’s character or for indicating to the jury that he is a proper candidate for punishment.” (agreeing with the appellant’s argument that the state’s presentation of 24 witnesses testifying to one Spreigl incident for three days of a twelve-day trial was highly prejudicial) (quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967)).
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
    4 In State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , we added a necessity requirement where the Spreigl evidence is offered under the identity exception.
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Billstrom , 276 Minn. 174 , 179 , , 284-85 (1967).
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    If the state wishes to introduce Spreigl evidence, it must provide the notice of its intent and “specify the exception to the general exclusionary rule under which it is admissible.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    (quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , ).
  • State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
    Prior to that time, we had applied the clear and convincing evidence standard for the admission of Spreigl evidence since at least State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (Minn.1967).
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
    Spreigl evidence “should be excluded where it is merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning a defendant’s character or for indicating to the jury that he is a proper candidate for punishment.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
    (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , ).
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
    See State v. Bill-strom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
    Appellant contends that State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 177-78 , requires a more specific cautionary instruction than is currently contained in CRIMJIGs 2.01 and 3.16.
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
    at 504 (quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , (“where the sole issue in a case is the identity of defendant ⅜ * ⅜ the rigid rules of evidence will be relaxed”)).
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999