Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Matteson, 287 N.W.2d 408.

52 citing documents.

State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McCoy 668 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The appellant had challenged admission of the prior-acts evidence, arguing that the district court had not made a (holding that whether evidence of other crimes is clear and convincing is for the court to determine as a matter of admissibility).
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
This court has “been *81 flexible in applying this ‘test’ on appeal, upholding admission notwithstanding a lack of closeness in time or place if the relevance of the evidence was otherwise clear.” DeBaere, d at 305 ( State v. Bellcourt, 312 Minn. 263 , ).
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
( State v. Bellcourt, 312 Minn. 263 , ).
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
-11 (Minn.1979), the court listed six requirements that must be met to allow admission of Spreigl evidence: 1) the state must give notice that it intends to use such evidence; 2) at the time the evidence is offered, the state must specify the exception to the general exclusionary rule under which it is admissible
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(failing to ob *576 ject to this instruction at trial forfeits review on appeal); (court need not address appellant’s challenge to Spreigl jury instruction for not stating the applicable exception where no objection made at trial, and was the standard instruction).
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(refusing to address challenged instructions for failure to object); but see State v. Hembd, 305 Minn. 120, 130 , (defendant's failure to object did not preclude review where fundamental error occurred that caused substantial prejudice).
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Drieman 457 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 1990
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
-11 (Minn.1979); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , -85 (1967).
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
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. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
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. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(gap of one and one-half years weighs against admissibility).
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
State v. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
“Generally, the greater the similarity of the other crime to the crime charged in time, place or modus operandi, the greater the chance that the other crime is relevant.” We have been flexible in applying this “test” on appeal, upholding admission notwithstanding a lack of closeness in time or place
State v. Nelson 326 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1982
State v. Nelson 326 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1982
Cases supporting the trial court’s
State v. Luna 320 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1982
State v. Luna 320 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1982
In its preadmittance determination that the evidence of the other offense was clear and convincing, the trial court could rely on the positive nature of the victim’s claim and on the fact that, subsequent to an even earlier incident of sexual misconduct against the same victim, evidence of which was withheld from the jury, the police literally caught defendant in the act of using a scissors to intimidat
State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
State v. Walker 310 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1981
Defendant’s and State v. Williams, 307 Minn. 191
State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
State v. Bazoff 300 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1981
State v. Bazoff 300 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 1981