Legal Opinion

State v. Frisinger

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 1, 1992No. C7-91-458PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

In its decision the court of appeals granted the defendant a new trial because, in its view, the trial court committed plain error of a prejudicial nature in failing to give, sua sponte, cautionary instructions on the appropriate use by the jury of other-crime evidence admitted against defendant pursuant to Minn.R.Evid. 404(b). State v. Frisinger, 478 N.W.2d 538 (Minn.App.1991). We hold that the trial court did not commit plain error of a prejudicial nature. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of conviction of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Crane v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. State v. SpreiglSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  3. State v. FilippiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  4. State v. ForsmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  5. State v. CrockerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. State v. BolteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. State v. BlomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
  3. State v. ProfitSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  4. State v. BauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  5. State v. WermerskirchenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API