Cited by

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

226 citing documents.

State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The trial court held an in camera hearing and found the requirements of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967), were met.
State v. Diersen 356 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Diersen 356 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Evidence of prior convictions is admissible when the requirements set forth in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , have been met and the trial court determines the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial ■effect.
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
The leading case of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , established standards that must be met before evidence of prior misconduct covered by an exception may be admitted.
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 177-78
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Stagg 342 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1984
State v. Stagg 342 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1984
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
State v. McAdoo 330 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1983
The various Spreigl requirements, including the notice requirement, are set forth in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Hinkle 310 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1981
State v. Hinkle 310 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 1981
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
In State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , we held that where the state intends to offer other-crimes evidence in its case in chief not only must a SpreigI notice be given and the exception to the exclusionary rule specified, but the court must admonish the jury that the defendant is on trial only for the offense charged.
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. Hudson 281 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1979
State v. Hudson 281 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , where we held that evidence of other crimes closely connected in point of time, location, or modus operandi is admissible to establish identity, but only if defendant’s participation in other crimes is proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Wakefield 278 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1979
State v. Wakefield 278 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1979
In Spreigl and in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , we established procedural safeguards designed to minimize the prejudicial impact upon the defendant.
State v. Anderson 275 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1978
State v. Anderson 275 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1978
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Corarito 268 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
State v. Corarito 268 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. DeGidio 261 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1978
State v. DeGidio 261 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1978
State v. BiUstrom, 276 Minn. 174
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
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , is the leading Minnesota case in this area and it established standards that must be met before evidence covered by an exception may be admitted.
State v. Bellcourt 251 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1977
State v. Bellcourt 251 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
State v. Jensen 242 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1976
The second issue is controlled by this court’s decision in State v. Bill-strom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
State v. Diamond 241 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1976
The jury was warned of the limited purpose for which this evidence was received, in accordance with State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , both before testimony of the Bohmbach incident was admitted and in their final instructions.
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
2 State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , State v. Bowser, 305 Minn. 431
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