Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clark, 738 N.W.2d 316.

98 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lacy Rose Carlsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ger Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[Appellate courts] review the admission of Spreigl evidence for an abuse of discretion.” (footnote omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-99 (Minn. 1995); -38 (Minn. 2007) (discussing the lack of prejudice to appellant due to a cautionary instruction with respect to Spreigl evidence).
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Fahad Abdihaim Diriye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
l be offered to prove”; (3) whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant participated in the prior act”; (4) whether the evidence is “relevant and material to the state's case”; and (5) whether the probative value of the “evidence is outweighed by its potential prejudice to the defendant.” (quoting Ness, d at 685–86).
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As to the agents’ offer of “consideration” in exchange for Jacobson’s future cooperation with an investigation regarding his supplier, “[c]ourts look with disfavor on implied and express promises made by the police during interrogation, but such promises do not automatically render a statement involuntary.”
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 198-99; -48 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-47 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted) (finding that the prior crime was not markedly similar to the charged offense where the crimes were “relatively remote in time” and the two incidents did not show a “distinctive modus operandi”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. S. H., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-48 & n.15 (Minn. 2007) (acknowledging that district court did not apply proper analysis but affirming because defendant failed to show prejudice).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
each is governed by a different body of law.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An “appellant challenging the admission of Spreigl evidence bears the burden of showing the error and any resulting prejudice.”
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Anderson 789 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2010
State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Booker 770 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
819, 820-21 , 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958); (noting that police have “duty to identify and vigorously investigate any clues that could lead to the arrest ...
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. O'MEARA 755 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
But when Spreigl evidence is introduced to show a common plan or scheme, as in this case, it must have a “marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense.”
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
at 691 ; -48 (Minn.2007) (declining to reverse a district court’s erroneous admission of Spreigl evidence absent a showing of prejudice by defendant).