Supreme Court of Minnesota· 3/17/2005

State v. Washington

Citations

693 N.W.2d 195
2005 WL 612708

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

ruling that the district court “properly guarded against admitting evidence that was unnecessary” and unfairly prejudicial by “limiting the number of Spreigl incidents” and by limiting the testimony to only relevant facts
recognizing that the court’s task of weighing probative value against prejudicial effect does not end with the preliminary decision to admit some prior-act evidence, but that the defendant bears the burden of challenging the scope of such evidence
concluding that plain error did not occur when the district court did not sua sponte limit objectionable testimony, stating, “[w]e do not agree that the district court must, or even should, interfere with the trial strategy of the defendant”
stating that “evidence of modus operandi was relevant because [the defendant] claimed that [the alleged victim] had fabricated her claims to retaliate” against the defendant
reciting five requirements district courts should consider when deciding whether to admit Spreigl evidence
noting appellant’s concession that certain other-bad-acts evidence may have been relevant due to similarities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hanson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.