Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385.

271 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Merwin Andrew Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Zakarie Farah Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The judge read the following instruction: 1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Spreigl, d at 167).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. N., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
e state argued that the evidence was admissible to show motive, intent, plan, preparation and “a propensity towards inappropriate sexual contact with young girls and is admissible to prove a common scheme or plan.” At the hearing on the motion, the state confirmed that it also sought to 1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” (citing Spreigl, ).
State of Minnesota v. Dorell Monte Young Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “ Spreigl evidence.” ( ).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Derrick George Rocha Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Murdent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To show a common scheme, the evidence “need not be identical in every way to the charged crime but must instead be sufficiently or substantially similar to the charged offense —determined by time, place and modus operandi.”
State of Minnesota v. Tialee Marie Grassini Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Travis John Stancer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota v. D. E. N Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Londell McClendon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Trinidad Jesus Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jason William Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Douglas Hager Minn. Ct. App. 2022
tnesses] and Mr. Hager leading 11 up to our charges in this case.” The instructions also reite rated that Hager “is not being tried for and may not be convict ed of any offense other than the charged offenses which were outlined in the formal complaint.” These cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being give n by the jury to the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Erik Heiderscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Ronald Lee Schlangen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts—often called “ Spreigl evidence.” State v. Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Latese Capree Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) govern s the admissibility of evidence of other crimes or bad acts, commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.” State v. Kennedy , (citing State v. Spreigl , ).
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts—commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.” d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998) (citing State v. Spreigl , ).
State of Minnesota v. Clifford Lamont Lea Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“[W]e see no reason why corroboration of the Spreigl victim’s testimony is necessary as a matter of law to meet the clear and convincing standard.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, the state must show that the evidence makes the thing to be proved “highly probable,” (quotation omitted), and it may do so with either direct or circumstantial evidence, –04 (Minn. 1991).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To meet the clear-and-convincing standard, the state must show that the evidence makes the thing to be proved “highly probable,” (quotation omitted), and it may do so with either direct or circumstantial evidence, – 04 (Minn. 1991).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Davion Lee Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shawn William Lampi Minn. Ct. App. 2020
10 (that court read cautionary instructions “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”) The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Spreigl evidence of Lampi’s past conviction.
State of Minnesota v. Edgar Noe Lopez-Monter Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Such evidence is commonly referred to as “Spreigl evidence.” see State v. Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Abner Otwoma Momanyi Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Elizabeth Rose Osterbauer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brad Donald Tomlinson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that providing cautionary instructions lessened the likelihood that the jury would give undue weight to the evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher O'Brien Bogan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Anthony Janish Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Campbell, d at 102 (quoting State v. Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Edward Ortiz Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
404(b); State v. Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Victor Wayne Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2019
404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Alvin Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Kendall Duncan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Such evidence is commonly referred to as “ Spreigl evidence.”2 d 385, 389 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Lance Martin Odegard Minn. Ct. App. 2019
404(b) (2017).1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is known in Minnesota as “Spreigl evidence.” ().
Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Buhl v. State 922 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Kennedy , , 390 (Minn. 1998) (referring to the requirement for admission of Spreigl evidence as a "procedural safeguard").
State of Minnesota v. Devell Eshawn Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To determine the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, courts consider “the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place or modus operandi.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christian Anthony Schutz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” State v. Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Seekou Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Evidence that provides the context of a relationship “bolsters its probative value.”
State of Minnesota v. Antwan Mister Carpenter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Relevancy and Materiality To determine the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, courts consider “the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place or modus operandi.” State v. Kennedy , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Marcellus Richmond Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining the relevance and materiality of Spreigl evidence, the district court “should consider the issues in the case, the reasons and need for the evidence, and whether there is a suffi ciently close relationship between the charged offense and the Spreigl offense in time, place or modus operandi.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Christopher Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Keith Lamar Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Darnell McDaniels Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting that “evidence of other crimes, including subsequent ones , may be admitt ed for a proper purpose” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted)).