Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bissell, 368 N.W.2d 281.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rule 609 impeachment evidence is admissible “only for a limited purpose and the giving of a contemporaneous limiting instruction helps ensure that the evidence will not be used inappropriately.” see also Minn. R. Evid.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(explaining preference that district courts give limiting instructions sua sponte, but it is not plain error to fail to do s o).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eugene Sirois Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roxanne Kay DeFlorin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
when the evidence is admitted.”
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Quince Raymond Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he same reasoning underlying the requirements spelled out in Forsman [for evidence admitted under State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, ] applies in the case of Rule 609 impeachment evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Irby 820 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We noted in Word that “[although the failure to give the [limiting] instruction may have been plain error, the question is whether it was prejudicial.” Word, d at 787 ; (noting in case where district court refused to give requested cautionary instruction that district courts, when admitting Spreigl evidence, should “on its own ...
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(failure to give cautionary instruction at time evidence was admitted “clearly was not prejudicial since the court did give such an instruction as part of its final instructions to the jury and since no one suggested that the evidence should be used for any purpose other than determining defendant’s c
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Word 755 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
and argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the proper use of his prior convictions when the evidence was introduced, even though a limiting instruction was issued at the end of trial.
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(concluding that the failure to give a cautionary instruction was not prejudicial since “no one suggested that the evidence should be used for any [improper] purpose”).
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
State v. Frisinger 484 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1992
(fact that “no one suggested that the evidence should be used for any [improper] purpose” relied upon by the court in concluding that failure to give a cautionary instruction was not prejudicial).