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. Morrison, 310 N.W.2d 135.

48 citing documents.

  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
  • State v. DeWald 464 N.W.2d 500 Minn. 1991
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Seelye v. State 429 N.W.2d 669 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See, (two years and nine months between Spreigl offense and charged offense); (offenses within a year of each other).
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
  • 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
    (to be probative the court must find the evidence both relevant and material); (court must find some relationship in time, location, or modus operandi between the crime charged and the prior crime).
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The court must also determine that the evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is “relevant and material to the state’s case.”
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Jones 392 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 1986
    (trial courts must determine that the evidence is “relevant and material to the state’s case”); (before admitting such evidence trial courts must rule that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential for “unfair prejudice”); State v. Bill
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Doughman 384 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1986
    The court must also determine that the evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is “relevant and material to the state’s case.”
  • State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The DeBaere court summarized the Spreigl case law as follows: : The key tests in determining admissibility of Spreigl evidence are whether the evidence is clear and convincing that defendant participated in the Spreigl offense, whether the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, and whether the potential of the Spreigl evidence for unfair p
  • State v. Doughman 368 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Doughman 368 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    see also State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
  • State v. DeBaere 356 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1984
    : The key tests in determining admissibility of Spreigl evidence are whether the evidence is clear and convincing that defendant participated in the Spreigl offense, whether the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, and whether the potential of the Spreigl evidence for unfair p
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
    Defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying a motion to bar the state from impeaching him with a prior rape conviction if he testified is controlled by prior decisions of this court
  • State v. Reinke 343 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Reinke 343 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
    occurred, and evidence establishing that defendant was at the victim’s residence when she said he was, Defendant’s contention that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion to bar use of his prior conviction (a 1978 conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree) to impeach his credibility when he testified is answered by pri- or decisions
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Smith 333 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1983
    Cases of this court in which the defendant has made an issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence that the victim was in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm include:
  • 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. Williams 325 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Williams 325 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1982
    Numerous cases of this court, support the admission of this evidence.
  • State v. Scott 323 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Scott 323 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 1982
    The key tests in determining admissibility of Spreigl evidence are whether the evidence is clear and convincing that defendant participated in the Spreigl offense, whether the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, and whether the potential of the Spreigl evidence for unfair p
  • State v. Woelm 317 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Woelm 317 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1982
    "The key tests in determining admissibility of Spreigl evidence are whether the evidence is clear and convincing that defendant participated in the Spreigl offense, whether the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state's case, and whether the potential of the Spreigl evidence for unfair