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. Wakefield, 278 N.W.2d 307.

23 citing documents.

  • Chad Loran Siegel v. Drew Evans Minn. 2026
    As the United States Supreme Court has observed, an acquittal may reflect a “determination that the defendant is innocent of the crime charged ….” McElrath v. Georgia, 601 U.S. 87, 94 (2024); (stating that while an acquittal does not necessarily signify innocence, it remains “a basic tenet of our jurisprudence that once the state has mustered its evidence against a defendant and failed, the matter is done,” and “[i]n the eyes of the law the
  • State of Minnesota v. Alexander Charles Leboeuf Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
    The district court concluded, however, because the jury had acquitted Pass of the offenses related to San Roman’s death.
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    O’ in support of his argument.
  • State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
    -09 (Minn.1979) (holding that charges for which a defendant has been acquitted may not be admitted as Spreigl evidence), *281 means that evidence of the acquitted Sears charge could not have been admitted as Spreigl evidence in separate trials of the other offenses and therefore the improper joinder was prejudicia
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    -09 (Minn.1979) (holding act for which defendant was acquitted cannot be used as Spreigl evidence).
  • State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
  • State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
    A special concurrence referred to this court’s which held that it is error to admit Spreigl evidence relating to a prior offense of which the defendant has been acquitted.
  • State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The admissibility of this evidence is premised on the fact that it sometimes has “especially good probative value.”
  • State v. Johnson 322 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 322 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Almengor 310 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1981
  • Distinguished State v. Almengor 310 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1981
    — which holds that evidence of another crime of which the defendant has been acquitted cannot later be used — is distinguishable because the defendant in that case was acquitted of the prior offense.
  • State v. Burton 281 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Burton 281 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 1979
    In deciding to admit Olson’s testimony, the trial court did not have the benefit of this court’s