Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-94, 396 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
14 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The determination of whether offenses arise from a single behavioral incident is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Moreover, the determination depends on “the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Moreover, the determination depends on “ the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” d 391, 394 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct.
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The single-behavioral-incident analysis presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Kendell, d at 607; (“The determination of whether offenses arise from a single behavioral incident is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances of each 17 case.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Spreigl evidence is inadmissible unless the court determines: “(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 t he Spreigl evidence is not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.” (analyzing Spreigl elements for purpose of determining if improper joinder prejudiced defendant), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
23, 2008), and does no t need to be a signature crime, (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The determination of whether offenses arise from a single behavioral incident is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” d 391, 394 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To warrant a Schwartz hearing to examine possible jury misconduct, a “defendant must first present evidence that if unchallenged would warrant the conclusion that jury misconduct occurred.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maurice Galloway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Evidence of psychological intimidation, coercion, and persuasion is not admissible.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.