Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Titworth, 255 N.W.2d 241.
- State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
- State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
-
State v. DeWald
464 N.W.2d 500
Minn. 1991
(citing State v. Saucedo, 294 Minn. 289, 293 , ).
- State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Mosby 450 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- 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. Halverson 381 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Halverson 381 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Snyder 375 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Muller 358 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Diersen 356 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Diersen 356 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- State v. Langley 354 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1984
- Muhammed v. State 316 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 1982
-
Muhammed v. State
316 N.W.2d 572
Minn. 1982
The specific arguments made by petitioner have been addressed in a number of our cases, including the following:
- State v. Schantzen 316 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
- State v. Schantzen 316 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
- State v. St. John 299 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
-
State v. St. John
299 N.W.2d 737
Minn. 1980
(similar robberies committed by defendant on the same day) strongly supports the trial court’s admission of the other-crime evidence.
- State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
- State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
- State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
- State v. Black 291 N.W.2d 208 Minn. 1980
- State v. Matteson 287 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1979
-
State v. Matteson
287 N.W.2d 408
Minn. 1979
discusses the “ ‘clear and convincing’ standard” as one of the standards which must be met before evidence covered by an exception may be “admitted” by the trial court.
- State v. Alexander 259 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 1977
-
State v. Alexander
259 N.W.2d 594
Minn. 1977
(b) Defendant’s contention that there was not clear and convincing evidence of his participation in the other crimes is answered by our recent decision in State v. Titworth, Minn.