State v. Arndt

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Johnson

    322 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that the evidence established an intent to kill when the defendant fired shots at a police officer in a squad car, even though the shot used was not powerful enough to penetrate the windshield

    " As stated in State v. Schweppe, 306 Minn. 395, 404, 237 N.W.2d 609, 616 (1975), "The purpose underlying the Spreigl notice procedure is to ensure that a defendant is not forced to defend himself against unexpected testimony of prior offenses." And as stated in State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978), the rationale for the exception for previously prosecuted crimes is that "normally one can presume that the defense will not be surprised at trial if the state offers evidence of a relevant crime for which the defendant has already been prosecuted." The same rationale supports the exception for other offenses committed as part of the same occurrence or episode.

  2. State v. Tscheu

    758 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 2008)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that a defendant "may not rely on mere conjecture" and instead must "point to evidence in the record that is consistent with a rational theory other than guilt"

    Accordingly, we will not discuss this issue. Regarding Tscheu's claim that the State did not give proper notice, we presume that "the defense will not be surprised at trial if the state offers evidence of a relevant crime for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978). But the State nonetheless must give advance notice of its intent to introduce prior conviction evidence if the defendant requests discovery. Minn. R.Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 1(5). Tscheu requested discovery of certain evidence, but did not include his criminal record in the request.

  3. State v. Anderson

    414 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 4 times
    Reviewing denial of motion for acquittal by deciding whether evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions

    Here, Anderson was charged by complaint with the 1985 offense. Even with the exception for previously-prosecuted offenses, the prosecution must give notice of such offenses if the defendant requests discovery under Minn.R.Crim.P. 9.01. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Minn. 1978). Anderson requested discovery under Rule 9.

  4. State v. Bolte

    530 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 1995)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that despite dissimilar nature of the Spreigl act, defendant could not demonstrate prejudice to warrant a new trial

    For example, the state must disclose other crimes for which defendant was previously prosecuted. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637, 638-39 (Minn. 1978). (iii) The prosecutor must specifically articulate to the trial court how the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case, and demonstrate that the purpose of the evidence is not improper. Billstrom, 276 Minn. at 178, 149 N.W.2d at 284.

  5. State v. King

    367 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 14 times
    Affirming the refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines where "[a]ppellant's contention that she was not the aggressor in the incident was not clear from the evidence"

    State v. Boyce, 284 Minn. 242, 170 N.W.2d 104 (1969); that the State was obligated to comply with defendant's discovery demand pursuant Rule 9. State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1978); and that the State's letter dated November 7, 1983, acknowledged by defendant, satisfied the discovery demand. The court's finding that evidence of a prior incident where appellant held a knife to the victim's throat was clear and convincing is supported by the record.

  6. State v. Hatlestad

    347 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 28 times
    Holding officer has no duty to furnish supplies or transportation for an additional test

    Upon a discovery demand the state must disclose evidence it might offer on "additional offenses" arising in the same episode. See Minn.R.Crim.P., Rule 7.02; State v. Arndt, 264 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 1978); State v. Johnson, 322 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 1982). Describing testimony on a bottle of brandy as evidence of an additional offense, defendant claims he was entitled to written disclosure the testimony might be offered.