Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ture, 353 N.W.2d 502.
-
State v. Grayson
546 N.W.2d 731
Minn. 1996
We have said that a defendant cannot be convicted “twice for the same offense against the same victim on the basis of the same act.” see also Minn.Stat.
- State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
-
State v. Wilson
539 N.W.2d 241
Minn. 1995
§ 609.04 (1994), “[a] defendant cannot legally be convicted of two counts of first-degree murder where both convictions were for the same offense on the basis of the same act involving the same victim.”
- State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
-
State v. Cogshell
538 N.W.2d 120
Minn. 1995
Examples include: (prior crime used to prove identity was ten years old but remarkably similar to charged offense; both were pharmacy robberies in which the robbers ordered the victims to he 'on the floor, demanded “Class A drugs” and ordered the victims “not to push the button”); (prosecution of rape-kidnapping; upholding admission on issue of identity of evidence of prior acts that were strikingly similar and closely related in time); (holding it proper to admit other robbery to prove identity
- State v. Horning 535 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1995
- State v. Horning 535 N.W.2d 296 Minn. 1995
- State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. McDaniel 534 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
- State v. Roan 532 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1995
- State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Richardson 514 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
- State v. Swanson 498 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1993
- State v. Gerald 486 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Gerald 486 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Willey 480 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- State v. Morgan 477 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Morgan
477 N.W.2d 527
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
similar arguments were made to the jury.
- State v. Smith 476 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1991
- State v. Smith 476 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1991
- State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
- State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
- State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Smith
464 N.W.2d 730
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The court must consider whether the prosecutor’s improper statements “were so egregious as to justify a new trial.”
- State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Grimmett 459 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Glaze 452 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1990
- State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
- State v. Hannuksela 452 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
-
State v. Glaze
452 N.W.2d 655
Minn. 1990
-16 (Minn.1984); -02 (Minn.1980), cert.
- State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
- State v. Slowinski 450 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1990
- State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
- State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
- State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Hedstrom 426 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Robinson 427 N.W.2d 217 Minn. 1988
-
State v. Robinson
427 N.W.2d 217
Minn. 1988
but the trial court must find the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential “unfair prejudice.” Billstrom, 276 Minn. at 178-79 , d at 284-85 .
- State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988