Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Frisinger, 484 N.W.2d 27.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Unfair prejudice is an unfair advantage resulting from “the capacity of the evidence to persuade by illegitimate means.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Cf. State v. Frisinger , (holding district court’s failure to give jury cautionary instruction on proper use of Spreigl evidence harmless when “the prosecutor did not suggest that the jury use the other-crime evidence for an improper purpose.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
State v. Smith 932 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 2019
(emphasis added)); State v. Frisinger , , 31 (Minn. 1992) ("[T]he preferred approach is for the trial court to focus on the closeness of the relationship between the other crimes and the charged crimes in terms of time, place and modus operandi.").
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. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Such a limiting instruction minimizes the risk of jurors misusing Spreigl evidence, Rossberg, d at 616, and should be given “even in the absence of a request” from the defendant
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he preferred approach is for the [district] court to focus on the closeness of the relationship between the other [acts] and the [present case] in terms of time, place, and modus operandi.”
State v. Ferguson 804 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2011
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
“[T]he closer the relationship, the greater is the relevance * *
State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Flemino 721 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(holding that trial court erred in not permitting defendant to explain circumstances of prior conviction).
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
(internal citation omitted)
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
Instead, “the preferred approach is for the trial court to focus on the closeness of the relationship between the other crimes and the charged crimes in terms of time, place and modus operandi.”
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
State v. Frisinger , , 31 (Minn. 1992).
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
(quoting State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , ).
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
(“While the trial court clearly should have given the instructions sua sponte and while it is conceivable that a case may arise where the facts are such that a failure to give these instructions sua sponte may constitute plain error of a prejudicial nature requiring * * * a new trial, we find that a ne
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding these instructions allow the jury to give proper weight to Spreigl evidence); (holding they are “recommended in-structionfs]” to be given concerning evidence of other bad acts).
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Bauer 598 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
(internal citation omitted).
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
“The reason for this is that the closer the relationship, the greater' is the relevance or probative value of the evidence and the lesser is the likelihood that the evidence will be used for an improper purpose.”
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Head 561 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 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