Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Black v. Tahash, 158 N.W.2d 504.

29 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Evidence of another crime, wrong, or bad act may be admissible “for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident ,” if the prosecuting attorney gives appropriate notice.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Black v. Tahash, a police officer testified that he had asked the defendant “when was the last time he saw [the alleged accomplice], and he stated that he had only seen him once since leaving Stillwater.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Martell Antonio Bloxson, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We have made it clear that "[t]he state will not be permitted to 'deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendos which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible."' State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157, (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301, 12 ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Black v. Tahash, a police officer testified that he had asked the defendant “when was the last time he saw [the alleged accomplice], and he stated that he had only seen him once since leaving Stillwater.” 280 Minn. 155, 157
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Valinski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Black v. Tahash, in which a police officer testified that the defendant told him “that he had only seen [an accomplice] once since leaving Stillwater.” 280 Minn. 155, 157
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 158
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
State v. Ives 568 N.W.2d 710 Minn. 1997
See State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Cf. State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157 , (stating that a prosecutor may not employ insinuation and innuendo, through questions or elicited answers, to plant in jurors’ minds a prejudicial belief in otherwise inadmissible evidence).
State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
State v. Harris 521 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 1994
9 We have made it clear that “[t]he state will not be permitted to ‘deprive a defendant of a fair trial by means of insinuations and innuendos which plant in the minds of the jury a prejudicial belief in the existence of evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.’ ” State v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157 , (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 , ).
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Butenhoff 484 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155, 157 , (quoting State v. Currie, 267 Minn. 294, 301 , ).
State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155 , 158 N. W. (2d) 504 .
Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
Simberg v. State 179 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 1970
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155 , 158 N. W. (2d) 504 .
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
Hayes v. State 169 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1969
Black v. Tahash, 280 Minn. 155 , 158 N. W. (2d) 504 .