Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spaeth, 552 N.W.2d 187.

71 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Qalinle Ibrahim Dirie Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“All evidence offered against defendants in criminal trials is prejudicial to some extent.”
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Robert Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“All evidence offered against defendants in criminal trials is prejudicial to some extent.”
State of Minnesota v. Lamechtric Irving Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“All evidence offered against defendants in criminal trials is prejudicial to some extent.” d 187, 195 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Nathanael John Prevo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d at 9 (citing State v. Spaeth , ).
State of Minnesota v. Jeramy John Wharton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And, although “[a]ll evidence offered against defendants in criminal trials is prejudicial to some extent ,” the district court provided two sets of limiting instructions to the jury.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But “[a]ll evidence offered against defendants in criminal trials is prejudicial to some extent.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ndichu Kinyanjui Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Willie B. Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Nikki Jo Hauser Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lewonda Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.2, 193 (Minn. 1996); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 490
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S. Ct. 495, 499 (1971)).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dean Ryan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dean Ryan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allan Mikiska Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a state of mind is generally proved through circumstantial evidence); (stating that convictions based on circumstantial evidence demand stricter scrutiny).
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marstyn Ryan Taft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing State v. Spaeth, 8 for the rule that a “court may not rely on conduct underlying one conviction to support a sentencing departure for a separate conviction”).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The admissibility of “Spreigl evidence lies within the sound discretion of the [district] court” and “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Craig Ogris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Admission of 8 Spreigl evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 187, 193 (Minn. 1996).
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Cordale Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
State v. Hill 801 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 2011
(undue prejudice); (relevance); (Spreigl evidence).
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(considering whether “any other factors justify[] the upward departure” after concluding that sole factor found by district court was conduct underlying another conviction).
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Smith 749 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
And conduct underlying one conviction cannot be relied on “to support departure on a sentence for a separate conviction.” ( (holding that it was impermissible to use conduct that resulted in victim’s murder as aggravating factors for burglary conviction)).
State v. Masood 739 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Masood 739 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006