Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Broulik, 606 N.W.2d 64.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Dennis Vincent Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See 10 Minnesota 15 Practice, CRIMJIG 2.03 (2023); -71 (Minn. 2000) (approving the pattern jury instruction on the limited purpose of Spreigl evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Thao, d at 839-40; -72 (Minn. 2000); Minn. Dist.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. N., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-71 (Minn. 2000) (analyzing whether jury instruction should have included the specific purpose for which the jury could use Spreigl evidence and concluding that no 11 [district] court should give an appropriate cautionary instruction both upon receipt of the other-crime evidence and as part of the final instruc
State v. Zinski 927 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The pattern jury instructions “express the opinion of the Minnesota District Judges Association Committee on Criminal Jury Instruction Guides.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allan Misgen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Holisky, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The pattern jury instructions merely “express the opinion of the Minnesota District Judges Association Committee on Criminal Jury Instruction Guides.”
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ahavel Abimbola Scherz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
(noting that, failure to instruct on specific purpose of Rule 404(b) evidence is not error unless request to so instruct was made).
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Hollins 765 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(holding that the district court erred by denying appellant’s request for a specific limiting instruction); see also Babcock, d at 41 (holding that the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the limited purposes for which Sprei
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Edwards 717 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2006
State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
in which the Minnesota Supreme Court questioned the rationale behind the relevant CRIMJIG instruction and endorsed the practice of the federal courts, which require a specific limiting instruction when requested.
State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. DeYoung 672 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
the supreme court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give an instruction limiting the specific purpose for which Spreigl evidence may be considered, where the defendant did not request such an instruction.
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
State v. Krosch 642 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2002
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 633 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2001
Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNOR 633 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2001
Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001
State v. Kuhnau 622 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 2001