Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Forsman, 260 N.W.2d 160.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ryan Marshall McNally Minn. Ct. App. 2024
at 688 (emphasis added) ().
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Grayling Tweed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 160, 167 (Minn. 1977) (stating that the common-scheme- or-plan exception “has evolved to embrace evidence” of modus operandi).
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Forsman , , 164 (Minn. 1977).
State of Minnesota v. Russell Wayne Melanson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
( (other citations omitted)).
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.N.W., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.N.W., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
.” d 160, 164 (Minn. 1977).
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The common scheme or plan exception “has evolved to embrace evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense, tend to corroborate evidence of the latter.”
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
It is true that, in Bissell , we analogized evidence of prior convictions to Spreigl evidence and stated that “the trial court, on its own, should give a limiting instruction both when the evidence is admitted and as part of the final instructions to the jury.” Bissell, d at 283 ().
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But this requirement becomes “mandatory only upon the defendant’s objection and/or request.”
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
State v. Hayes 826 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2013
But as we have stated, "[i]t is the exclusive province of the [LJegislature to define by statute what acts shall constitute a crime.”
State v. Crawley 819 N.W.2d 94 Minn. 2012
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
This exception was “originally reserved for those offenses which could be described as preplanned steps in a larger scheme of which the charged offense was another step.” (citing cases).
State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating common plan or scheme exception “has evolved to embrace evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense, tend to corroborate evidence of the latter”).
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
(discussing how the “common scheme or plan” exception has evolved to embrace offenses which tend, to corroborate the charged offense because of their marked similarity in mo-dus operandi).
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488 , and State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , ).
State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Anderson 654 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (shoplifting); (damage to property); (sale of narcotics); (sale of narcotics).
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Spears 560 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
§ 645.16 (1996) (forbidding courts from disregarding plain statutory language); (recognizing courts cannot ignore language under pretext of pursuing purpose of law).
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Carithers 490 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1992
State v. Carithers 490 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1992
this court ruled that a felony murder conviction under the general felony murder statute as it was then worded (it has since been changed slightly) may be predicated on distribution of heroin by direct injection by the defendant, since such a felony clearly is one “upon or affecting the person whose
State v. Branson 487 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1992
State v. Branson 487 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 1992
-65 (Minn.1977) (holding the distribution of heroin by direct injection into the body of another to be a felony “upon or affecting the person whose death was caused” but reiterating that, by using those words in the felony murder statute, the legislature “has ensured that a conviction for third-degree murder will
State v. Carithers 484 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Carithers 484 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Wermerskirchen 483 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
where we said generally that while the trial court, even in the absence of a request, ought to give the cautionary instructions upon receipt of the other-crime evidence and as part of the final instructions, the failure of the trial court to give those instructions in the absence of a request is not
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Blair 474 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The state had provided written notice of its intent to offer the Spreigl evidence, and consequently “the other Spreigl-Billstrom procedures became mandatory only upon the defendant’s objection and/or request.”
State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988