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. Czech, 343 N.W.2d 854.

35 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    404(b), evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to 9 prove a defendant ’s character , but may properly show “ motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident .” Prior bad acts may be admissible to show the “context of [a] conversation .” d 854, 856 (Minn. 1984); (determining that evidence of a defendant’s prior record “may be relevant to establish identity, to provide the context for a statement or a c onversation, or for other legitima
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Similarly, in State v. Czech , the supreme court affirmed admission of a tape recording of an undercover investigation in which the defend ant referenced his invol vement in other bad acts because this evidence showed “the cont ext of the conversation.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Sheldon James Armstrong, III Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Id.; (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of events that triggered an investigation and excavation of the defendant’s backyard as “context for an investigation”); -57 (Minn. 1984) (upholding admission of the defendant’s taped statement in which he implicated himself in other crimes, concluding that the whole tape was necessary to give the jury the proper context 6 for the defendant’s statement and to reveal to the jury wh
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick Perry Paczkowski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    -57 (Minn. 1984) (holding references to other crimes was relevant to show context of conversations with undercover agents).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jean Clarice Clement Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See Griller, d at 743 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of events that triggered an investigation and excavation 10 as “context for an investigation”); -57 (Minn. 1984) (upholding admission of the defendant’s taped statement in which he implicated himself in other crimes, concluding that the whole tape was necessary to give the jury the proper context for the defendant’s statement and to reveal to the jury why the police were conducting an underc
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Nelson Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See Tovar, d at 726 (upholding admission of police statements that defendant was lying as context for defendant’s statements and record indicated strategic reasons for not objecting); -57 (Minn. 1984) (holding that it was not error to fail to redact the defendant’s references to prior crimes because they provided context as to why the undercover officers were speaking with the defendant).
  • State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
    The testimony “provided the jury with the context necessary to explain how the investigation against Griller began and why the police were excavating [Griller’s] backyard.” Id.; (affirming the admission of evidence of an undercover investigation of the defendant because the evidence could show “the context of the conversation; that is, why the undercover agents were talking with defendant”).
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Boitnott 443 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Boyd 410 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (d *448 89, 104 (Minn.1980), cert.
  • State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Stafford 404 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    21, 1986) (incarceration relevant to identity); -57 (Minn.1984) (references to other crimes relevant to show context of conversations with undercover agents).
  • State v. Breeden 374 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Breeden 374 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Langdon v. State 371 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Langdon v. State 371 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Gonzales-Guerrero 364 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Gonzales-Guerrero 364 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1985
    the evidence was a secretly-made tape recording of statements that the defendant made before committing the charged offense, aggravated robbery of a marijuana dealer.
  • State v. Stephenson 361 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Stephenson 361 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1985
    Cases applying Rule 403 (relevant contemporaneous statement of defendant indicating involvement in prior crime and tending to show that the charged crime was intentional); (relevant evidence of statement of defendant before a crime indicating involvement both in other crime and in charged crime); State v. Morgan, 310 Minn. 88 , cert.