State v. Enger
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial or judgment of acquittal, arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence for his conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by providing the parties with only a portion of B.B.’s diary; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Spreigl evidence of a prior bad act by appellant; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing. Because we conclude that appellant’s sufficiency and eviden-tiary arguments are without merit, we…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. BlackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. KoperskiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State Ex Rel. Peterson v. FabianCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2009