Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shannon, 583 N.W.2d 579.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[I]f the prior crime is simply of the same generic type as the charged offense, it ordinarily should be excluded.” State v. Shannon , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 Before admitting Spreigl evidence, a district court must determine “(1) that the evidence is clear and convincing that the defendant participated in the other offense; (2) that the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case; and (3) that the probative value of the Spreigl evidence is not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.”
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Unlike other cases in which we have affirmed the trial court’s admission of Spreigl evidence on the strength of a conviction, a victim’s clear identification of the defendant as the assailant, or the defendant’s own confession,” in this case, it cannot be said that Davis’s participation in the Lake Calhoun shooting is “highly probable.” (quotation omitted), holding modified by Ness, d at 686.
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
In the context of revers e-Spreigl evidence, the evidence must “clearly show the person’s direct participation in the other crime.” ().
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
“[I]f the prior crime is simply of the same generic type as the charged offense, it ordinarily should be excluded.” -18 (Minn.2006) ().
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
However, “if the prior crime is simply of the same generic type as the charged of *918 fense, it ordinarily should be excluded.”
State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
To admit Spreigl evidence’, the district court must determine '“(1) that the evidence is clear and convincing that the defendant participated in' the other of-fensé; (2) that the Spreigl evidence is relevant and material'to' the state’s case; and (3)that the probative value of the Spreigl evidence is not outweighed by its 'potential for unfair prejudice.”
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
State v. McCoy 682 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hogetvedt 623 N.W.2d 909 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
“Evidentiary rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“Evidentiary rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Roberts, 296 Minn. at 353 , d at 747-48 (holding error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant new trial); see also Maurer v. Department of Corrections, 32 F.3d 1286, 1290-91 (8th Cir.1994) (reversing because error was not harmless where vouching testimony was used to bolster victim’s credibility); (reversing and remanding for new trial due to admission of prejudicial evidence where state’s case was weak).
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Shoen 598 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999