Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Berry, 484 N.W.2d 14.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Although the two incidents are not identical, “[a]bsolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
While the charged offense and the other incident must be markedly similar, id., “[a]bsolute similarity betwee n the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy,”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While the charged offense and the other incident must be markedly similar, id., “[a]bsolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy,”
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Leighton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (affirming use of Spreigl evidence as relevant of intent); (holding district court properly admitted evidence of Spreigl incidents to show intent); -79 (Minn. 1990) (holding no abuse of discretion where district court admitted Spreigl evidence as “particularly probative of the ‘knowledge of intent’”).
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emery Scott Whitt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quotation omitted); (“Absolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy.”).
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francis Allen Skinness Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because “[a]bsolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy,” we conclude that 7 the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the Spreigl evidence was relevant and material to the state’s case.
State of Minnesota v. Angel Maldonado, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court considered the impeachment value individually of the domestic-assault conviction and the violations of a no-contact order by stating they “illuminate a pattern of conduct on the part of [appellant].” We recognize that “[e]vidence of other crimes or acts is inadmissible to prove the character of a person.”
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[a]bsolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl [crime] is not required.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
However, “[a]bsolute similarity between the charged offense and the Spreigl incident is not required to establish relevancy.”
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
d at 119 -20 (citing cases); d at 391 -92 (); d at 197 n. 2 (d at 504 ).
Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-18 (Minn.1992) (admission of Spreigl evidence proper where states evidence weak as to defendants intent and modus operandi); see also Stagg, d at 127 (for other-crime evidence to be admissible, direct or circumstantial evidence on issue in question must be weak or inadequate).
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
Spreigl evidence need not be identical in every way to *16 the charged crime, but should serve to “complete the picture” of the defendant and “not to paint another picture.” Lynch, d at 81 ().
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
In State v. Berry, we stated that three prior incidents of the defendant’s violence, which bore little resemblance to each other or to the charged offense of first-degree premeditated murder, were “relevant because of the similarity of the way appellant behaved when trying to maintain control of the people with whom he worked.”
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. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Lynch 590 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
Evidence of the Burger King robbery “served to complete the picture of [Lynch], not to paint another picture.”
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
State v. Kennedy 585 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1998
(citing Landin, d at 860 ); see also DeWald, d at 504 (stating that although the risk of prejudice is present whenever Spreigl evidence is admitted, in “weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect, the trial court must consider the extent to which the Spreigl evidence
State v. Johnson 568 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 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
State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
State v. Spaeth 552 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1996
State v. Lewis 547 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 1996
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. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. Steinbuch 514 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1994
State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
State v. King 513 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1994
State v. Wermerskirchen 497 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1993
State v. Wermerskirchen 497 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 1993
Or, to paraphrase this court’s the evidence served to complete the picture of defendant, to put his current conduct in its proper and relevant context, not to paint anoth *243 er picture or lead the jury to convict on the basis of an irrelevancy.