Cited by

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

226 citing documents.

State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
When identity is at issue, evidence of other crimes is “admissible only if the trial court finds the direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that it is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof.” State v. Bill-strom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
(citing State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , ).
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
In addition, in order to safeguard against the improper use of other crimes evidence, this court established several other limitations on its admission in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
Based on this rule of evidence, Cross asserts that evidence of prior acts of domestic violence should only be admitted subject to the safeguards established by this court for admission of “other crimes” evidence in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
This weak-issue (not weak-case) rule was first articulated in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , where Spreigl evidence was offered to show identity.
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
See Spreigl, 272 Minn, at 496-97, d at 173 ; State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967); Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
1 In State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , we adopted procedural safeguards to govern the determination of the admissibility of other-crime evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b).
State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
Each verbal formulation of a particular substantive or procedural principle relating to the admission of other-crime evidence pursuant to this rule has been honed over time in a series of cases going back to State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
We announced many of these requirements in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , and State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
State v. Maurer 488 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Maurer 488 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See generally State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , see also 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIM.
State v. Berry 484 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1992
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
This court has stated that Spreigl evidence is “admissible only if the trial court finds the direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that it is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178 , (emphasis added).
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ANALYSIS I. The Spreigl Hearing Appellant contends that the Spreigl procedures set out in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , and its progeny were not complied with in his trial below, and therefore, he was denied a fair trial.
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The trial court also guarded against undue prejudice by following the procedure as set out in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
-11 (Minn.1979); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
The state gave appropriate notice of intention to present evidence of two prior incidents involving appellant for the purpose of establishing a common modus operands See, e.g., State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Coleman 426 N.W.2d 889 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179