DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Filippi, 335 N.W.2d 739.

126 citing documents.

  • State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Waukazo 374 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178
  • State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. McRae 371 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Andersen 370 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    In applying this rule, the “preferred approach” is to “analyze the evidence and determine if the evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, if the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the offense is clear and convincing, and if the probative character of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.”
  • State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Smith 367 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1985
    The “preferred approach” to applying this rule is to determine “if the evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, if the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the offense is clear and convincing, and if the probative charac-fer of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.”
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Lavastida 366 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -44 (Minn.1983); State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174
  • State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
    In applying this rule, we have held that the “preferred approach” is to “analyze the evidence and determine if the evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, if the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the offense is clear and convincing, and if the probative character of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.”
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Peirce 364 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1985
    2 (1982), using CRIMJIG 4.01 (1977) verbatim: Defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person when defendant has intentionally aided the other person in committing it, or has intentionally advised, or hired, or requested the other person to commit it.
  • State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Ward 361 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kumpula 355 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Kumpula 355 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1984
    : The preferred approach to applying this rule is to analyze the evidence and determine if the evidence is relevant and material to the state’s case, if the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the offense is clear and convincing, and if the probative character of the evidence outweighs its pot
  • State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Hines 354 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The preferred approach to applying this rule is to analyze the evidence and determine if the evidence is relevant and material to the State’s ease, if the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the offense is clear and convincing, and if the probative character of the evidence outweighs its pot
  • State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984