Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doughman, 384 N.W.2d 450.

86 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lamont Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The notice procedure serves to guard against the injustice of using evidence against an accused who is unprepared to demonstrate that 12 such evidence is unsubstantiated.”
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
State v. Ross 732 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2007
See, (reviewing evidence and affirming the trial court’s finding that Spreigl evidence was supported by clear and convincing evidence); -56 (Minn.1986) (reviewing evidence and holding that the trial court’s finding that Spreigl evidence was supported by clear and convincing evidence was erroneous).
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
‘We will not reverse a trial court’s admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.”
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 495-97 , d at 172-73 ; see also Bolte, d at 199 ; -56 (Minn. 1986) (reversible error to admit evidence of prior arson when defendant had no notice of state’s intent to introduce such evidence and evidence may have resulted in unjust verdict).
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(“The notice procedure [required for Spreigl evidence] serves to guard against the injustice of using evidence against an accused who is unprepared to demonstrate that such evidence is unsubstantiated.”).
State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Belssner 463 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Cichon 458 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Skramstad 433 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
* * * The court must also determine that the evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is “relevant and material to the state’s case.” * * * In addition, it must rule that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential for “unfair prejudice.” (citations omitted).
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Shamp 422 N.W.2d 520 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Flores 418 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1988
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court stated that a trial court’s admission of evidence of other bad acts will not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Haala 415 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Champion 413 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Champion 413 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Evidence of other crimes is admissible where it tends to establish common scheme or plan embracing the commission of similar crimes “so related to each other that proof of one or more of such tends to establish the [current] accusation.” -54 (Minn.1986) (citation omitted).
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
State v. Rainer 411 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1987
State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
State v. Kasper 409 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1987
as requiring the state to call the Spreigl victim at the Spreigl hearing and have the trial court weigh the credibility of the victim in any case where the only evidence that the offense occurred is the victim herself.
State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the trial court admitted Spreigl evidence that the defendant had threatened to burn down another person’s barn and that a few days later the barn burned down.
State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Crocker 403 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Utsch 406 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1987