Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 107.

113 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(explaining that police statements that they had influence with the county attorney “were not the kind of statements that would make an innocent man confess”); (reasoning that confession was voluntary where the defendant was led to belie
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Id.; (applying this aspect of Harris).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
roduced to show prior acts by A.L. and cast reasonable doubt on the state’s claim of his guilt, the “reverse-404(b)” or “reverse- Spreigl” analysis would be appropriate, including consideration of whether the evidence would “establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan,” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491, ).
Majinieke Vasha Thompson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Slowinski , -15 (Minn. 1990) (stating that the reading of cautionary instructions lessens the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the Spreigl evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 401-02, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 2418 (1978)
State of Minnesota v. Anthony James Cox 884 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason DeWayne Kirk Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
Compare Farnsworth, d at 375 (concluding statement was voluntary when police implied that the defendant needed help, but did not state they had “special influence with the district court”), -12 (Minn.1990) (concluding that the defendant’s statement was voluntary although police “explained to him the various degrees of murder and encouraged him to explain what happened so that if there were mitigating circumstances, they would be considered in the charges filed”), with Biron, 266 Minn. at 277, 28
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
643, 645-46 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971)
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); (“A confession obtained in violation of [a] defendant’s constitutional right to counsel may be used for the purposes of impeachment, but only if voluntary.”).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-15 (Minn.1990) (holding that the reading of a cautionary instruction to the jury before testimony and at the close of the entire case lessened the probability of undue weight being given to the evidence); (stating district court minimized prejudice by narrowly li
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
d at 392 (d at 504 , and State v. Slowinski ).
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
See, 11 Peter N. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, Evidence § 404.06, at p. 164 (3d ed.2001).
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Whittle 685 N.W.2d 461 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Lynch, d at 81 ; -14 (Minn.1990) (noting that the district court must consider whether the evidence is necessary to support the state’s burden of proof).
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
see, -15 (Minn.1990) (finding no abuse of discretion when the incidents all involved the use of a knife, the removal of clothes, and sexual threats).
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
Such evidence may be admitted, however, “to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan.” (citing State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 491 , ).
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Marshall 642 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Criticized In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (police improperly suggested to juvenile defendant that they had influence with county attorney and could arrange for counseling or reduced charge if mitigating circumstances existed); Ga rner, d at 727 (interrogating officer, among other things, lied to accused); State v. Biron, 266 Minn. 27
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
Spreigl Evidence Evidence of the commission of other crimes (Spreigl evidence) may be admitted “to establish motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan” but is inadmissible under Minn. R. Evid.
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Kates 598 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-15 (Minn.1990) (noting judge read cautionary instructions to jury before testimony and at close of en *697 tire case which lessened probability of undue weight being given to evidence); (stating district court minimized prejudice by narrowly limiting scope of tes
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
State v. Ritt 599 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1999
alleged that a statement admitted at trial was involuntary because of promises of leniency as well as psychological coercion.
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999