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. Bolte, 530 N.W.2d 191.

164 citing documents.

  • State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Coonrod 652 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    P. 7.02; -97 (Minn.1995).
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
    Kennedy, d at 389 (-97 (Minn.1995)).
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
    See, -99 (Minn.1995) (discussing criminal defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of evidence of defendant’s participation in other crimes); State v. Klotter, 274 Minn. 58, 62-63 , -72 (1966) (same); State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490-97 , -73 (1965) (same).
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    -97 (Minn.1995); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -99 (Minn.1995) (listing factors of harmless error analysis); (defendants have right to be personally present at every stage of the trial “where their presence relates to the fullness of their opportunity to defend against the charge”) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing Spreigl procedural requirements and safeguards).
  • State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
    we recognized that “ ‘[ojlder’ offenses sometimes are relevant, sometimes not.” Id.
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crime evidence)
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Chambers 589 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
    -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crime evidence); DeWald, d at 503 .
  • State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
    -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crime evidence); DeWald, d at 503 .
  • State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
  • Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks 580 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    See Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., (erroneous exclusion of evidence); . (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”).
  • State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Cross 577 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 572 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    404(b) (evidence of another crime inadmissible to prove action in conformity with defendant’s character); (“other-crime evidence is not admissible for the purpose of establishing that the defendant is of ‘bad character’ because he or she committed the prior crime and therefore has a general propensity to commit other crimes”); Wermerskirchen, d at 239-40 (if only purpose of Spreigl evidence is to
  • State v. Byers 570 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1997
    (citation omitted); -97 (Minn.1995) (detailing procedural requirements and safeguards governing other-crime evidence).
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    le is to examine the entire trial record and determine “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict; * ⅜ ⅜ if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict might have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had not been admitted, then the error in admitting the evidence was prejudicial error.” ( , 102 n. 2 (Minn.1994)) (footnote omitted).
  • 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. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Harris 560 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1997
    In other words, “other crime evidence is not admissible for the purpose of establishing that the defendant is of ‘bad character’ because he or she committed the prior crime and therefore has a general propensity to commit other crimes.”
  • State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
  • 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