DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wermerskirchen, 497 N.W.2d 235.

114 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Spreigl evidence may also be admitted to show whether the conduct on which the charge was based actually occurred or was “a fabrication or a mistake in perception by the victim.” -42 (Minn. 1993).
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 773 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 2009
    (holding that prosecutorial misconduct may be cured by district court instruction); (same).
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
    (holding that prosecu-torial misconduct may be cured by district court instruction); (same).
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -43 (Minn.1993) (admitting evidence of several past incidents of abuse against the defendant, the oldest of which occurred 19 years before trial).
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
    242 n. 3 (Minn.1993), the passage of time may be insignificant when the defendant has spent a substantial part of the time between the offenses in prison.
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
    Ness, 2004 WL 1444952 , at *2 ( , 242 n. 3 (Minn.1993)).
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
  • State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
    (quoting 2 Wigmore, supra § 357) (first two omissions in original).
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    -41 (Minn.1993); see also State u Duncan, review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    404(b) to show appellant’s intent, common scheme and plan, absence of mistake or accident
  • 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
    Blom, d at 612 ; , 242 n. 3 (Minn.1993).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    Blom , d at 612 ; State v. Wermerskirchen , , 242 n. 3 (Minn. 1993).
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (concluding “our cases do not preclude the use of other-crime evidence to establish common scheme or plan, i.e., to establish that the act occurred”) with Minn. R. Evid.
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    242 n. 3 (Minn.1993) (observing that passage of time may be insignificant if, for example, the defendant spent a number of those years in prison or “if the older offense is part of a ‘pattern’ of similar misconduct occurring over a number of years” and noting that we have upheld the admission of offenses going back
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
    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 operands”
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Distinguished State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
    Relevant recent decisions of this court setting forth in detail the settled case law controlling the admission of other-crime or so-called Spreigl 1
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    242 & n. 3 (Minn.1993) (stating the ultimate issue is relevance and affirming the trial court’s admission of Spreigl evidence based on the similarity of the illegal acts, the location in which the acts took place, and the young age of the victims).
  • State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
    The case law, which is well-settled, is set forth in detail in a number of decisions, including, State v. Frisinger, 484 M.W.2d 27 (Minn.1992); State v. Filippi