DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ture v. State, 681 N.W.2d 9.

145 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).
  • State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).
  • State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).
  • State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    16 (Minn.2004) (affirming conviction, but noting redundancy when state presented testimony from 24 witnesses on a defendant’s prior crime for 3 of 12 days of trial testimony).
  • State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
    (noting that, failure to instruct on specific purpose of Rule 404(b) evidence is not error unless request to so instruct was made).
  • Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (rejecting pro se arguments without detailing consideration of each argument).
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Graham 764 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2009
    When assessing alleged prosecutorial misconduct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Leutschaft 759 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    (holding that the phrase “the state submits” does not inject the personal opinion of the prosecutor, in contrast to the phrase “I think”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
  • State v. McCray 753 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2008
    When assessing alleged prosecuto-rial misconduct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
    When assessing alleged misconduct during a closing argument, “we look to the closing argument as a whole, rather than to selected phrases and remarks.”
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
    Our cases make clear, however, that the common scheme or plan exception includes evidence only of offenses that have a “marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.” Forsman, d at 166 (emphasis added)
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
    -17 (Minn.2004) (holding that evidence that defendant collected information on women was not admissible as Spreigl evidence because there is nothing inherently wrong with collecting information on women).
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Morton 701 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2005
    If the state has engaged in misconduct, the defendant will not be granted a new trial if the misconduct is “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    We note, however, the supreme court’s instruction in Ture v. State to exclude Spreigl evidence “where it is merely cumulative and a subterfuge for impugning a defendant’s character or for indicating to the jury that he is a proper candidate for punishment.” (agreeing with the appellant’s argument that the state’s presentation of 24 witnesses testifying to one Spreigl incident for three days of a twelve-day trial was highly prejudicial) (quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 179 , -85 (1967)
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    2 -19 (Minn.2004), the supreme court held that where a defendant asked for the Eighth Circuit Model Instruction, which instructed that evidence of prior bad acts was admitted solely for the purposes of proving identity, the district court did not err in denying the request where the evidence was admitted for other pu
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    Spreigl evidence should “complete the picture” of a defendant, not “paint another picture.” -16 (Minn.2004) (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    Ture v. State , , 15-16 (Minn. 2004) (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004