DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

271 citing documents.

  • 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
  • State v. Stewart 643 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Vick 632 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 2001
    -97 (Minn.1995); see State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 496-97
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Walthers 620 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    180 , 145 L.Ed.2d 151 (1999); -81 (Minn.1999) (allowing evidence of subsequent robbery to show identity and modus operandi of masked assailant in felony-murder trial); (allowing evidence that the defendant sexually assaulted the victim in a similar manner six months after the charged incident to rebut defendant’s allegation that the victim fabricated the incident); -37 (Minn.1998) (allowing evidence of defendant’s prior assault of
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Jackson 615 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Oates 611 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 608 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
    (using the standard cautionary instructions “assured that the jury did not give improper weight to the evidence”); (explaining that CRIMJIGs 2.01 and 3.16 lessen ‘the probability of undue weight being given by the jury to the evidence”).
  • State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Morris 606 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 2000
    “Absent a clear abuse of discretion, evidentiary rulings generally rest within the trial court’s discretion.”
  • State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Reckinger 603 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    -92 (Minn.1998) (quotation omitted).