DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

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 v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
    2 In this case, there was an objective basis for the trial court to conclude that there was insufficient similarity between either of the prior crimes committed by the victim and the attempted robbery of defendant by the victim alleged by defendant in his testimony.
  • State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Hudspeth 535 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1995
    We have done so in a number of recent decisions
  • M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • M.L. v. Magnuson 531 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    the supreme court held that evidence that the defendant had previously engaged in sexual misconduct was admissible to prove mo-dus operandi or common scheme or plan, at least where the corpus delecti, the doing of the act, was truly at issue.
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
    However, -40 (Minn.1993) we stated: [t]he rule is a specific application of the “rule of multiple admissibility” — evidence that is inadmissible for one purpose (inference from immediate inference of bad character to inference that defendant acted in conformity therewith) should not be excluded if it is properly admissible
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (Spreigl evidence admissible to disprove defense of fabrication and to show a “pattern of behavior involving the opportunistic sexual exploitation of young girls within the family context”).
  • State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
  • Explained State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
    -40 (Minn.1993) (footnote omitted), where we added: The rule is a specific application of the “rule of multiple admissibility” — evidence that is inadmissible for one purpose (inference from intermediate inference of bad character to inference that defendant acted in conformity therewith) should not be excluded if
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Wiskow 501 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    404(b); (evidence of other acts may be used to establish a common scheme in proving the crime).