Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ness, 707 N.W.2d 676.

326 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The general concern over admitting Spreigl evidence is that the jury might use the evidence for an improper purpose, “such as suggesting that the defendant has a propensity to commit the [charged] crime.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
−86 (Minn. 2006) (discussing “a five-step process to determine whether to admit other-acts evidence”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The district court must identify the “precise disputed fact to which the [ Spreigl] evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And even if the district court plainly erred by admitting Spreigl evidence, we will not vacate a guilty verdict unless the defendant carries his burden to demonstrate tha t the improperly admitted evidence “significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Ness , 691 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tracee Chung Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin 887 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Concepcion Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Concepcion Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The common-scheme-or-plan exception to rule 404(b) permits the admission of “evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense, tend to corroborate evidence of the latter.” d 676, 687-88 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant argues that the incidents described in the relationship evidence “[were] more egregious than the charged offense[] [and] likely [inflamed] the jury’s passion against appellant.” noting that prior bad act evidence may improperly suggest “that the defendant has the propensity to commit the crime or that the defendant is a proper candidate for punishment for his or her past acts.” We conclude that Ness is distinguishable.
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Blair Lindemyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); -86 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); -86 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Dean Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the admission of Spreigl evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Tyler Schwappach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Tyler Schwappach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Motive is not an element of most crimes, but the state is usually entitled to prove motive because motive explains the reason for an act and can be important to a required state of mind.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A bad act is admissible under the common scheme or plan exception if it has a “marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. True Thao 875 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 2016
The danger of admitting prior-bad- acts evidence, which we have referred to in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence,” “is that the jury may convict because of those other crimes or misconduct, not because the defendant’s guilt of the charged crime is proved.” -01 (Minn. 2005) (noting that the “overarching concern” regarding Spreigl evidence is its potential use for an improper purpose, such as suggesting that the defendant has the propensity to commit a crime); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, 13
Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown … 875 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2016
27, 29 (WCCA), aff'd without opinion
State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016