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. Kennedy, 585 N.W.2d 385.

269 citing documents.

  • In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Houge 764 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2009
    (noting that clear and convincing evidence is established by “more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”).
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Lindsey 755 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (holding that, for the purpose of a Spreigl analysis, “evidence of other crimes, including subsequent ones, may be admitted for a proper purpose”).
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
    The clear and convincing standard “requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Rucker 752 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • 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. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gomez 721 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
    (explaining that standard cautionary instructions to the jury lessen “the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence”).
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Ness 707 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Montgomery 707 N.W.2d 392 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Bell 703 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See, -92 (Minn.1998) (noting that *863 Spreigl evidence may be admitted only if the other evidence is weak or inadequate and the district court should make that assessment after the state has presented all of its non -Spreigl evidence).
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Boehl 697 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
  • Angus v. State 695 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 2005
    See, 11 Peter N. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, Evidence § 404.06, at p. 164 (3d ed.2001).
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Martinez 694 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (characterizing evidence of other crimes or bad acts as “Spreigl” evidence).
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Washington 693 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2005
    State v. Kennedy , , 389 (Minn. 1998); Minn. R. Evid.
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Babcock 685 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating common plan or scheme exception “has evolved to embrace evidence of offenses which, because of their marked similarity in modus operandi to the charged offense, tend to corroborate evidence of the latter”).
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
    '■ The defendant must show that the court erred and that the error was prejudicial: Id.
  • State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    n the nature of Spriegl evidence, “goes to the issues of both identity [of Hadgu] and corroboration of the testimony of [Owens].” Furthermore, the trial court gave a limiting instruction prior to the admission of the evidence and again as part of the final jury instructions, instructions that “lessened the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence.”
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
    *543 In evaluating the relevancy factor of the Spreigl test, “the trial court should 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 operand!”
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002