Cited by

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

226 citing documents.

State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
State v. Meadows 226 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1975
We need not repeat here what we said in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , which is the leading Minnesota case dealing with admission of evidence of other crimes in order to prove identity.
State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
However, we feel compelled to note that it would appear that the trial court not only erred in its ruling allowing evidence about the burglary but wholly failed in its duty to instruct the jury in the manner established by this court in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , where we said: “(f) Both at the time the evidence is received and in the final charge, the court should admonish the jury that the testimony is received for the limited purpose of establishing identity.
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
State v. Hogan 212 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1973
As we pointed out in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , evidence of a defendant’s participation in other crimes need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but must be clear and convincing.
State v. Maternowski 209 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1973
State v. Maternowski 209 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1973
Accordingly, under principles enunciated in State v. Bill *484 strom, 276 Minn. 174 , the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.
State v. Bergland 202 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1972
State v. Bergland 202 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1972
• We find'no merit in any of defendant’s contentions: (1) The trial court properly permitted proof of the assault in accordance with the rules and procedures which we recited in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , the leading case dealing with the identity exception to the rule generally excluding proof of other crimes; (2) defendant has shown no prejudice from the trial court’s permitting the prosecution witness who had violated the sequestration order to testify; and (3) since defendant in the
State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
State v. Fulford 187 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1971
In view of the fact that the testimony of Miss Nordstrom was properly admissible in rebuttal for impeachment, the issue as to the applicability of the pretrial notice provisions of State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , 139 N. W. (2d) 167 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 , is rendered moot.
State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
State v. Darrow 177 N.W.2d 778 Minn. 1970
The procedural requirements of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 , were followed.
State v. Ambuehl 176 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1970
State v. Ambuehl 176 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1970
After the jury returned a verdict of guilty, defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that in introducing evidence of prior crimes the state failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 .
State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
State v. Clark 176 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1970
See, State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 .
State v. LaValla 167 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1969
State v. LaValla 167 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1969
State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 .
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
However, defendant’s objection to the offer of proof was sustained, although the offer complied with the requirements of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281, 284 .
State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
State v. Gaulke 161 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 1968
See, State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , 149 N. W. (2d) 281 .