Cited by

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

95 citing documents.

State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
In State v. Forsman, we have described the “common scheme or plan” exception as embracing “evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense, tend to corroborate evidence of the latter.”
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Meat 397 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS I. The general rule is that “ ‘evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime independent of that for which he is on trial is inadmissible.’ ” (quoting State v. Dinneen, 300 Minn. 354, 356 , , 294 (1974)).
Adesiji v. State 384 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Adesiji v. State 384 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Soto 378 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1985
State v. Soto 378 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1985
State v. Aarsvold 376 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Aarsvold 376 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme *523 court held that the distribution of heroin by direct injection into the body of another was a felony “upon or affecting the person whose death was caused” and was punishable under the earlier felony-murder rule.
State v. Bissell 368 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1985
State v. Bissell 368 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1985
we stated that when admitting [State v.] Spreigl [ 272 Minn. 488 , ] evidence 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.
State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
State v. Amos 347 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1984
Spears v. State 300 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1980
Spears v. State 300 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 1980
State v. Nunn 297 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1980
State v. Nunn 297 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1980
-65 (Minn.1977), in which we interpreted the phrase as ensuring “that a conviction for third-degree murder will not result from a mere property offense.
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Mendoza 297 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Wahlberg 296 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1980
State v. Daml, 282 Minn. 521
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 296 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1980
we further held that if a SpreigI notice is given, failure of defense counsel to request a limiting instruction at trial waives the requirement.
State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
State v. Adams 295 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1980
2) (1978) states the felony murder statute is “restricted to those felonies committed upon or affecting the person * * we interpreted this phrase as insuring “that a conviction for third-degree murder will not result from a mere property offense.” Id.
State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
State v. Clark 293 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1980
State v. Rowland 269 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1978
State v. Rowland 269 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1978
State v. Ruud 259 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977
State v. Ruud 259 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1977