DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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