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. Martin, 197 N.W.2d 219.

40 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    -27 (Minn. 1972) (holding that district court properly admitted testimony regarding earlier robberies committed by the defendant because the defendant’s desire to conceal the earlier robberies motivated the charged murder).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Cf. Nunn, d at 907-08 (explaining that testimony regarding an earlier kidnapping, occurring months earlier, was immediate-episode evidence because the defendant obtained information during the earlier kidnapping that motivated the murder charge); -27 (Minn. 1972) (concluding that the district court properly admit ted testimony regarding earlier robberies because the defendant’s desire to conceal the robberies that occurred several weeks earlier motivated the charged murder.)
  • Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    und in the defendant's purse two days after drug store robbery was admissible as immediate-episode evidence where the drugs were the same type of drugs stolen from the drug store); (explaining that testimony about earlier threats is immediate-episode evidence because the earlier threats escalated into the charged assault); and State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128, –27 (1972) (concluding that the district court properly admitted testimony regarding earlier robberies committed by the 10 defendant b
  • State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128, 226-27 (Minn. 1972).
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    See, e.g., State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128 , -27 (1972) (affirming admissibility of evidence of victim’s threats to report older crimes because the evidence established a motive for the charged killing); (affirming admissibility of evidence of kidnapping that occurred one month bef
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
    3 We concluded in *426 State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128 , -27 (1972), that the district court properly admitted testimony regarding earlier robberies committed by the defendant because the defendant’s desire to conceal the earlier robberies motivated the charged murder.
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2005
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 124-25
  • State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
    Dicta in State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 124 , suggests that a defendant's conduct in the presence of, and admissions to a spouse, should be excluded under the statute.
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    22, 1987) (-37 (Minn. 1981); State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128-29 , -27 (1972)).
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Roy 408 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    -37 (Minn.1981); State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128-29 , -27 (1972).
  • State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 129
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Bjornson 378 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 129
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Salas 306 N.W.2d 832 Minn. 1981
    In State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , the defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, and one of the issues on appeal concerned the admissibility of testimony relating to other crimes.
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
    However, the trial court held that the three robbery charges were admissible without written notice under State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Ray 273 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1978
    See, State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116
  • State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Forsman 260 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 129 , for instance, we gave short shrift to defendant’s allegation of error: “Defendant’s objection to the testimony bearing upon the offense of bigamy may be disposed of by noting that he made no timely objection to this testimony.” In State v. Dinneen, 300 Minn. 354, 359
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Johnson 256 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1977
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242
  • State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
  • State v. Schweppe 237 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1975
    See, State v. Gavle, 234 Minn. 186, 207 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116, 128
  • State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
  • State v. Dinneen 220 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1974
    The prosecution cites the following cases in support of its position: State v. Hogan, 297 Minn. 430 , State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116 , State *358 v. Wofford, 262 Minn. 112 , and State v. Sweeney, supra.
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
  • State v. King 208 N.W.2d 287 Minn. 1973
    State v. Martin, 293 Minn. 116