DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

  • State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
    (upholding admission of Spreigl evidence in an unwitnessed sexual assault and murder case because, absent that evidence, the state would have been left with three fingerprints, a knife and a pair of gloves).
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
    See DeWald, d at 504 (requiring that the Spreigl evidence be “necessary to support the state’s burden of proof’); (stating that the trial court must consider whether the Spreigl evidence is necessary to support the-state’s burden of proof).
  • State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Shannon 583 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1998
    See State v. Slowinski , 113 n. 1 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Patterson 577 N.W.2d 494 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
    Bolte, d at 197 n. 2p; see also DeWald, d at 504 (state must show that Spreigl evidence is “necessary to support the state’s burden of proof’); -15 (Minn.1990) (in weighing probative value against prejudicial effect, trial court must consider extent to which Spreigl evidence is crucial to state’s burden of proof).
  • Bixler v. State 568 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Bixler v. State 568 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Although our case law has expressed disapproval of the use of promises to elicit confessions, we “do not mechanically hold confessions involuntary just because a promise has been involved.” (quoting (Kevin) Anderson, d at 65 ).
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Smith 563 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Nelson 562 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Nelson 562 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    -15 (Minn.1990) (noting that trial court may lessen the danger of unfair prejudice and undue weight being given by the jury to prior crimes evidence by giving cautionary instructions).
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Coleman 560 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    643, 645-46 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971)
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
  • State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
    We have not required that the other crimes be “signature” crimes, but we have repeatedly said that generally there must *363 be some relation between the other crimes and the charged offense in terms of time, place or modus operandi, Filippi, d at 743 .
  • State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Marin 541 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    see also Vu, d at 897-98 (looking to the totality of the circumstances if evidence suggests a waiver of constitutional rights was not knowing and intelligent).
  • State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Hince 540 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1995
    See also State v. Slomnski (although police made improper statements to the suspect, suggesting that they had influence with the county attorney, the statements were not promises and were not the sort that would prompt an innocent man to confess); (even though defendant may have
  • State v. Cogshell 538 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Gorman 532 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Spreigl evidence may be admitted to establish “motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, identity or common scheme or plan.”
  • State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
    (finding defendant’s pri- or experience with the criminal justice system significant factor in conclusion that confession was voluntary); (same).
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • In Re the Welfare of M.E.P. 523 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Thompson 520 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Buhl 520 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Buhl 520 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    See e.g., Moorman, d at 601 ; DeWald, d at 504 ; -15 (Minn.1990); Norris, d at 69 ; -44 (Minn.1987); -03 (Minn.1984); (Minn.App.
  • State v. McKenzie 511 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1994
  • State v. McKenzie 511 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Douglas 501 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Walsh 495 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Barber 494 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Poole 489 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Lee 480 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Frisinger 478 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1991