Cited by

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

269 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Wayne Davis-Drew Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“We presume a jury follows a court’s cautionary instruction.”); (concluding that a district court’s reading of two standard cautionary instructions to the jury lessened the probability of undue weight being given to the evidence).
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Evidence that helps to establish the relationship between the victim and the defendant or which places the event in context bolsters its probative value.” d 385, 392 (Minn. 1998).
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. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lester McHan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
She then picked up her one-year-old child, thinking that appellant would not assault her if she was carrying a baby, but he pushed her, she fell 1 Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is “Spreigl evidence.” see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Bill Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
after the state has presented all of its non-Spreigl evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Gentry Allan Needham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Welle 870 N.W.2d 360 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Xavier Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming use of common-scheme-or-plan evidence when prior incident and charged offense occurred within six months of each other and involved the same victim).
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(requiring a showing that admission of evidence was prejudicial and significantly affected the verdict).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that Spreigl evidence meets the clear-and-convincing standard “when the truth of the facts sought to be admitted is highly probable” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Benton 858 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2015
He also cautioned the jury against using the relationship evidence for an improper purpose, stating that the evidence “is about reworking the past and trying to mold it into [the State’s] theory of the case.” The district court provided numerous cautionary instructions as well, which “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Alvis Gayles, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court’s cautionary instructions here “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.” See State v. 6 Kennedy
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the “Spreigl evidence need not be identical in every way to the charged crime”).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
after the state has presented all of its non-Spreigl evidence.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Welle 847 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When it is unclear whether Spreigl evidence is admissible, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the defendant and the evidence should be excluded.”
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“observed a swastika tattoo on [appellant’s] arm, and assumed that [appellant] did not like her because of her race, did not make it any more likely that [appellant] assaulted [R.S.], a white man.” But “[e]vidence 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. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
This standard is met when the matter sought to be proved is “highly probable.”
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
State v. Riddley 776 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 2009
(“Absent a clear abuse of discretion, evidentiary rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion.”).
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Houge 764 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by