DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Buggs, 581 N.W.2d 329.

72 citing documents.

  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (Minn.1999) (allowing evidence of subsequent robbery to show identity and modus operandi of masked assailant in felony-murder trial); (allowing evidence that the defendant sexually assaulted the victim in a similar manner six months after the charged incident to rebut defendant’s allegation that the victim fabricated the incident); -37 (Minn.1998) (allowing evidence of defendant’s prior assault of the victim to show motive and intent to kill her); (allowing evidence of a prior bad act to show th
  • State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Day 619 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Young 610 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    Contending that the trial court’s instruction here was not erroneous, the state relies on Jones
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
    Prior to admitting such evidence, “the trial court must determine that there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the prior bad act and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any .potential for unfair prejudice.”
  • State v. Thames 599 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Thames 599 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Flores 595 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    Evidence of a defendant’s past abuse of a victim is not admissible to prove character in order to show that the defendant acted in conformity with that character, but may be admissible to show “ ‘motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.’ ” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.