Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gorman, 546 N.W.2d 5.

64 citing documents.

State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-9 (Minn.1996) (prior judicial interpretation gives guidance).
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hanson 583 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sec., (same); (court can “reach beyond the language of a statute only when it is ambiguous”).
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co. 577 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1998
6 . Olson v.Olson, Feick v. State Farm Mut.
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
“Those exceptions generally require similarity between the current and the past act as to defendant’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or identity.”
Wynkoop v. Carpenter 574 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1998
Wynkoop v. Carpenter 574 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1998
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Renneke 563 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See, (Spreigl may be admitted to prove motive even though motive is not an element of the offense), aff 'd
State v. Kortkamp 560 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Kortkamp 560 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1997