Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lynch, 590 N.W.2d 75.

57 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
A defendant challenging an indictment therefore “bears a heavy burden,” and “it is a rare case where an indictment will be invalidated.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Instead, it must be “sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense— determined by time, place, and modus operandi.” -81 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But, it “need not be identical in every way to the charged crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Neal Curtis Zumberge 888 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2017
We analyze the effect of alleged misconduct or deficiencies on the grand jury proceeding “after looking at all of the evidence that the grand jury received.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeffray Leallen Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
If identity is at issue, Spreigl evidence is “admissible only if the trial court finds the direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that it is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof.” (quotation 10 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, the [district] court should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When identity is at issue, evidence of other crimes is admissible only if the [district] court finds the direct or circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity is otherwise weak or inadequate, and that it is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof.”
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
We judge the effect of the misconduct on the grand jury proceeding “after looking at all of the evidence that the grand jury received.”
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
“A grand jury proceeding is not a trial on the merits and grand jurors do not determine guilt or innocence ...”
Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Leake 699 N.W.2d 312 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
But Spreigl evidence “need not be identical in every way to the charged crime.”
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Lynch , , 81 (Minn. 1999).
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Eibensteiner 690 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Because a presumption of regularity attaches to a grand jury indictment, “a criminal defendant bears a heavy burden when seeking to overturn an indictment.” see also Plummer, d at 38 (stating that an indictment will be invalidated “only in a rare case”).
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
“Even if evidence is relevant, however, ‘it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’ ” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Quick 659 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2003
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
“In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, ‘the trial court should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place, or modus operandi.’ ” ().
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
State v. Nelson 632 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2001
(stating that cautionary-instructions based on CRIMJIG 2.01 and CRIMJIG 3.16 “assured that the jury did not give improper weight to the evidence”) As a preliminary matter, we address appellant’s claim that his conviction should be reviewed under the standard applicable to a conviction based on circumst
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
-80 (Minn.1999) (citing United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 70 , 106 S.Ct.
State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
180 , 145 L.Ed.2d 151 (1999); -81 (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
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Waino 611 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000