Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ross, 732 N.W.2d 274.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ivan Contreras-Sanchez Minn. 2026
d 36, 41 (Minn. 2015); n.3 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Nicholas Lee Hill, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Charles Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Charles Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2024
winter evening supported his conviction of possession of burglary tools); State v. Adamson, 5 (noting that, because victim and defendant did not know each other and defendant exhibited behavior consistent with common burglary schemes, evidence supported defendant’s attempted-theft conviction); (stating that evidence connecting defendant to prior theft offenses made his involvement in other theft offenses “more probable by shedding light not only on his intent and participation, but also on his k
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quotation omitted) ; see also Minn. R. Evid.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. J. F.-D., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(considering the advisory-committee comments in ascertaining the meaning of a rule of 16 criminal procedure); (same).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted) ; see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Wakefield is not a bar to its admission.” d 274, 281 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Spreigl evidence may be “admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Ross , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Rule 17.03, subdivision 3(1)(a), requires severance of offenses that are ‘not related,’ and Rule 17.03, subdivision 3(1)(b) and (c), require severance of related offenses under some circumstances.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-0191 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To determine if offenses are related, we ask whether the of fenses are connected as a “single behavioral incident.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts, also referred to as Spreigl evidence, is “not admissible to show the defendant’ s bad character .” State v. Ross
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But under the doctrine of stare decisis, appellate courts are encouraged to “adhere to former decisions in order that there might be stability in the law.” State v. Ross
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Bullhead Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3(1)(a) (providing that the district court must sever offenses or charges if they are not related); (clarifying that “related” means part of the same behavioral incident).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To determine whether offenses are “related,” a court must determine whether the offenses “are part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric John Henderson-Bey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-82 (Minn. 2007) (reversing the court of appeals conclusion that because the appellant was acquitted by one of the joined offenses, evidence of that offense would not have been admissible as Spreigl evidence in separate trials of the other offenses).
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009