Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Montgomery, 707 N.W.2d 392.

19 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Travis Joel Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-99 (Minn. App. 2005) (determining that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Spreigl evidence “without any analysis of the legitimacy” of the purposes for which the evidence was admitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donta Jaboat Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This court has stated that “[a]n opening statement may not contain argument but rather must be confined to a description or outline of the facts a party expects to prove.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Grayling Tweed Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Implicit in the requirement that the proponent of Spreigl evidence disclose its purpose is that there also be some showing or determination that the evidence reasonably and genuinely fits that purpose.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Saldana Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Saldana relies on State v. Montgomery, in which this court held that it was prosecutorial misconduct to begin an opening statement by asking the jury to imagine a “newspaper headline announcing that a Twin Cities drug dealer was caught in a small-town sting.”
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Londell McClendon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It is not sufficient simply to recite a [rule] 404(b) purpose without also demonstrating at least an arguable legitimacy of that purpose.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Here, Johnson argues that the prosecuto r’s questions concerning the knife on cross-examination constituted plain error base d on this court’s
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In seeking to admit Spreigl evidence, the state must identify a permissible purpose of the evidence and make “some showing or determination that the evidence reasonably and genuinely fits that purpose.” State v. Montgomery
State of Minnesota v. Joel Allen Wortman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
During argument “the prosecutor must refrain from language that might inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury.” -400 (Minn. App. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Edward Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Clayton Francis Marshalek Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unfair prejudice in the Spreigl context refers to “the unfair advantage that results from the capacity of the evidence 12 to persuade by illegitimate means.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lester Corey Bates Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 531, 544 (Minn. 2004) ; Tucker v. State
State of Minnesota v. Donald Deundre Harris, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Implicit in the requirement that the proponent of Spreigl evidence disclose its purpose is that there also be some showing or determination that the evidence reasonably and genuinely fits that purpose.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Allen Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stevie Birdie Daniels Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Fernando Ulises Vargo Quinones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(“It is not sufficient simply to recite a 404(b) purpose without also demonstrating an arguable legitimacy of that purpose.”).