Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cartrell Ismail Smith 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).
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
404(b); –86 (Minn. 2006) (noting the five-step process required to introduce other-bad-acts, or Spreigl, evidence).
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has held that Spreigl evidence may be admitted under the common-scheme-or-plan exception “to establish that the conduct on which the charged offense was based actually occurred or to refute the defendant’s contention that the victim’s testimony was a fabrication or a mistake in perception.” –88 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “sexual or aggressive intent can readily be inferred from the contacts themselves”).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Spreigl evidence may be admitted “to show a common scheme or plan.”
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Gerald Michalec Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Two elements required for the admission of Spreigl evidence are that “the evidence must be relevant and material to the state’s case” and that “the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its potential prejudice to the defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In assessing the probative value and need for the evidence, the district court must identify the precise disputed fact to which the Spreigl evidence would be relevant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
9 “[I]n determining whether a bad act is admissible under the common scheme or plan exception, it must have a marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Soderbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Robert Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
404(b); -86 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Motive is not an element of most crimes .
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Levi Chen-Wah Leong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Lee Hendrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Motive is not an element of most crimes .
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
While it is undisputed that the evidence here is not admissible under rule 404(b), the evidence may be admissible for other limited purposes, including proof of “motive, intent, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme or plan.”
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(applying abuse-of-discretion standard of review to other-crimes evidence).