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. Volstad, 287 N.W.2d 660.

50 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (rejecting claim of prejudice where the incident was specifically mentioned in the complaint); review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    in which the supreme court affirmed a district court’s decision to allow a victim of a sexual assault to testify to prior acts of violence committed against her by the defendant.
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    (holding that the admission of unnoticed Spreigl evidence was not error, even though one of the prior crimes brought out at trial was not mentioned in the Spreigl notice, because: (1) the defendant did not specifically raise the issue at trial; (2) the incident was specifically mentioned in the compla
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    Consistent with Rule 404(b), it is within the trial court’s discretion to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior acts “for the purpose of illuminating the relationship of defendant and complainant and placing the incident with which defendant was charged in proper context.”
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    for example, we stated that evidence of prior assaults against the victim by the defendant may be “properly admitted for the purpose of illuminating the relationship of defendant and complainant and placing the incident with which defendant was charged in proper context.” Id.
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    JIG, 3.16 (1986); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Holden 414 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    No notice was required because the incidents were part of the same occurrence or episode which was charged, -41 (Minn.1985) ().
  • State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Clayborne 404 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Currie 400 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    1, 1985) (); see also State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491
  • State v. Gould 399 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gould 399 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • 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. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
    the issue was whether it was error to admit evidence of one of the defendant’s prior crimes against the victim, his estranged wife, because of the lack of a Spreigl notice.
  • State v. Thomas 360 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Thomas 360 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Luna 320 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Luna 320 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Gross 304 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
  • Volstad v. State 304 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1981
  • Volstad v. State 304 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Gross 304 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Moyer 298 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Coe 298 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Coe 298 N.W.2d 770 Minn. 1980
    (evidence of prior rape of estranged wife admitted in prosecution of defendant for later rape of same person); (evidence of prior burglary of same store committed 2½ years earlier admitted to aid in connecting defendant to later burglary).
  • State v. Moyer 298 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1980
    assuming the trial court improperly failed to address this, we conclude the defendant was not prejudiced because the record on appeal establishes that the evidence clearly and positively pointed to defendant’s guilt of the prior offense.
  • State v. Discher 295 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Discher 295 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1980