Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d 191.

164 citing documents.

Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Instead, among other things, we look to whether the “evidence will be used by the jury for an improper purpose,”
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“While reaffirming the importance of and the need for full compliance with the notice requirements of Spreigl .
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
d 191, 198 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 191, 197 (Minn. 1995).
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
We have said that, “[t]he underlying purpose of the Spreigl notice is to avoid surprise to the defendant by giving him time to prepare a defense to the charges.” State v. Grilli, 804 Minn. 80 , 86, (“The notice requirement is designed to give a defendant sufficient opportunity to prepare for trial and to avoid situations where a defendant must defend against unexpected testimony regarding prior offenses.”).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 749 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 2008
to support his argument that the district court was required to read CRIMJIG 3.20 in this case.
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
197 & n. 1 (Minn.1995); Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 497 , d at 173 ; Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
(citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. at 495 , d at 172 ).
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Foust v. McFairland 698 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., 300 Minn. 73, 79-80 , (providing that an error in admitting evidence is prejudicial “if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted”) (quotation omitted).
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)).
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Explained Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
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
Thus, the greater the time gap, the more similar the acts must be to lessen the likelihood that the Spreigl evidence “will be used for an improper purpose.” Ture, d at 15 ; (15-year-old rape conviction not relevant in murder prosecution).
State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
Ture , d at 15 ; see also State v. Bolte , , 198 (Minn. 1995) (15-year-old rape conviction not relevant in murder prosecution).
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
(); -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crimes evidence).
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (providing that an error in admitting evidence is prejudicial “if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted”) (quotation omitted).
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
198 n. 6 (Minn.1995) (distinguishing between harmless error standards for evi-dentiary rulings of a constitutional magnitude and erroneously admitted state’s evidence which does not affect constitutional rights).
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003