Cited by

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

164 citing documents.

State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
ed because the defendant denied the misconduct and the trial court found the other crime was sufficiently relevant to the charged crime); (stating that a closer relationship between the Spreigl evidence and the charged crime shows a greater probative value and a lesser likelihood that the evidence will be used improperly); -97 (Minn.1995) (requiring certain procedural safeguards, including a cautionary instruction upon receipt of the evidence and as part of the final instructions).
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
State v. Fallin 540 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1995
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
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
State v. Robinson 536 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1995
For a summary of the substantive and procedural requirements for the admission of other-crime evidence pursuant to the rule
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
State v. Dillon 532 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1995
State v. Dillon 532 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1995
(disproving of court of appeals’ suggestion at the other *559 extreme that the trial error is not harmless unless the evidence of defendant’s guilt is “conclusive”), , including n. 2 (Minn.1994) (carefully setting forth the harmless error impact standard to be app