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 v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    JIG, 3.16 (1986); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 176-77
  • State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Peterson 411 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
  • State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Evidence of other crimes “may not be introduced against an accused unless it comes under one of the recognized exceptions.” State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 176-77
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
    For example, in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , we prospectively adopted certain procedures that “shall be followed” with respect to the admission of other-crime evidence.
  • Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174,178-79 , -85 (1967).
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
    (trial courts must determine that the evidence is “relevant and material to the state’s case”); (before admitting such evidence trial courts must rule that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential for “unfair prejudice”); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , (there must be “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant participated in the crime or bad act); see also Kuhns, The Propensity to Misunderstand the Character of Specific Acts Evidence, 66 Iowa L.Rev.
  • State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179
  • 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. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
  • 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. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Taylor 369 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • 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. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -44 (Minn.1983); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
    Moreover, we conclude that the evidence was relevant and not “merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning 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).
  • Robinson v. State 366 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Robinson v. State 366 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Willis 364 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Willis 364 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Kennedy 363 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kennedy 363 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , See
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Thomas 360 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Thomas 360 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • 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