Cited by

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

326 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
al. The district court admitted the evidence as proof of “absence of mistake or accident” and considered it “solely for purposes of evaluating [appellant’s] claim that the alleged contact was accidental and/or a misunderstanding.” Evidence used to demonstrate a common scheme or plan “must have a marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We take this opportunity to clarify that in 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. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Denzel Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Henry Chouinard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Henry Chouinard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Joseph Mohr Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The erroneous admission of evidence is also harmless if there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If used to demonstrate that there is a common scheme or plan, the conduct of the prior act and the charged act “must have a marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Ronny Barsness Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Keith Richard Rossberg 851 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2014
Even so, the district court’s error does not entitle Rossberg to a new trial, because there is no “reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“Motive explains the reason for an act” and “concerns external facts that create a desire in someone to do something.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
A defendant appealing the admission of other crimes evidence must also demonstrate that the erroneous admission of evidence created “a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.”
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. McCurry 770 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-86 (Minn.2006) (explaining requirements for admission of Spreigl evidence).
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by