Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stagg, 342 N.W.2d 124.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 872 N.W.2d 252 Minn. 2015
See, (motion to dismiss a complaint); (objection to an 5 indictment); (challenge to the adequacy of a complaint).
State v. Sahr 812 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 2012
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
(“Regardless of the purpose for which the evidence is admitted, * * * the direct or circumstantial evidence on the issue must be weak or inadequate.”).
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In addition, “the direct or circumstantial evidence on the issue in question must be weak or inadequate.”
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
(citing State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174 , ).
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
at 178-79, d at 284-85 (emphasis added); (for other-crime evidence to be admissible, direct or circumstantial evidence on issue in question must be weak or inadequate).
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
404(b) (listing proper purposes for such evidence); (allowing admission of prior bad acts evidence when direct and circumstantial evidence on issue is weak or inadequate).
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
404(b) (admissible purposes); (direct and circumstantial evidence on the issue must be weak or inadequate).
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Madison, 281 Minn. 170, 176-77 , -85 (1968), cert.
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In addition, “there must be some relationship in time, location, or modus operandi between the crime charged and the [prior crime], and further, the direct or circumstantial evidence on the issue in question must be weak or inadequate.”
State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bobo 414 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(to be probative the court must find the evidence both relevant and material); (court must find some relationship in time, location, or modus operandi between the crime charged and the prior crime).
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Perez 397 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Conversely, “the evidence is inadmissible if it is irrelevant to the State’s case, if the sole purpose of its introduction is to show that the accused has a propensity to commit crimes, or if its potential for unfair prejudice outweighs its probative character.”
State v. Johnson 396 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 396 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Holmes v. State 394 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Holmes v. State 394 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Waterston 371 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Waterston 371 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Richardson 363 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Jannetta 355 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jannetta 355 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 1984