Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doughman, 384 N.W.2d 450.
- State v. Dupay 405 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Dupay
405 N.W.2d 444
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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.” -54 , (Minn.1986); see also Minn. R.Evid.
- State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. McCoy 400 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Rodriguez-Torres 400 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. McCoy
400 N.W.2d 807
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
* * * 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. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Kilker 400 N.W.2d 450 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gould 399 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Gould 399 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Wanglie v. State 398 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Rothering 397 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Rothering
397 N.W.2d 346
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court summarized *351 the Spreigl standards and appellate review of those determinations: 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. Reuer 396 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Reuer 396 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Starnes
396 N.W.2d 676
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
: 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. Warborg 395 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Daby 394 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Warborg
395 N.W.2d 368
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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. McDonald 394 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. McDonald
394 N.W.2d 572
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
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. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
-
State v. Burns
394 N.W.2d 495
Minn. 1986
is not inconsistent with this; it held merely that the lack of compliance with Spreigl requirements was prejudicial under the facts of that case.
- State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Wahl 394 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Aligah v. State 394 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Aligah v. State
394 N.W.2d 201
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court summarized the standards for admission of such evidence by a trial court and appellate review of those determinations: 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. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Rupp 393 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
State v. Casady
392 N.W.2d 629
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[I]t is the function of the trial court to weigh the credibility of a witness appearing before it.”