State v. Bott (1976)
green
· 87 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 20 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197620012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State of Minnesota v. Ishmael Roberts (2016)
The word “wrong” in this statute is “used in the moral sense.” State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 336 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976).
green
State v. Larson (1979)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976); State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 134 , 193 N.W.2d 802, 817 (1972).
green
Schleicher v. State (2006)
State v. Ulm, 326 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn.1982); State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 336 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976).
green
DeMars v. State (1984)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 334 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976).
green
State v. Linder (1981)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976).
green
State v. Lee (1979)
This issue was addressed less than a year ago in State v. Carignan, 271 N.W.2d 442 (Minn.1978), in which this court reaffirmed State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 337 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 53 (1976), where the trial court was held not to have committed error in refusing to instruct the jury as to the disposition of a defendant found not guilty by reason of mental illness.
green
State of Iowa v. Mark Daryl Becker (2012)
For that reason, we now hold that neither the prosecutor, defense counsel, nor the court may make any comment about the consequences of a particular verdict at any time during a criminal trial.”); State v. Okie, 987 A.2d 495, 497-500 (Me.2010); People v. Goad, 421 Mich. 20 , 364 N.W.2d 584, 589-90 (1984) (not requiring the instruction because it would be impossible to fully explain the "consequences” of an NGRI verdict because they are contingent on future events); State v. …
green
State v. Brink (1993)
See, e.g., State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Minn.1979) (psychologist testified that defendant’s mental condition of obsessive compulsive schizoid personality with involutional paranoid depression psychosis permitted defendant to realize the nature of the act but not that it was wrong; psychologist also “reconstructed the defendant’s thought processes” at the time of the incident); State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 333-34 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Minn.1976) (no error in allowing…
green
State v. Moore (1990)
“The question of proper foundation is largely one for the discretion of the trial court * * State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 334 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976). .
green
State v. Flores (1988)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 338 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 63 (1976).
green
State v. Ward (1985)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 338 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 53 (1976); McCormick, Law of Evidence, § 212 (2d Ed.1972).
green
State v. Bouwman (1984)
State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d at 907 ; State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976).
green
State v. Ulm (1982)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 336 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976); State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17 , 199 N.W.2d 774 (1972).
green
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters (1980)
State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 338-39 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 53-54 (1976).
green
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch (2015)
Graham, Federal 7 Practice and Procedure—Evidence § 5215 (1978)); see also State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331 , 338 n.3, 246 N.W.2d 48 , 53 n.3 (1976) (“ ‘Unfair prejudice’ includes an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” (quoting Fed.
“ ‘Unfair prejudice’ includes an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403, advisory comm.ttee’s note)
See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 334 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976).
green
State v. Blasus (1989)
See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 333-34 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 51 (1976).
green
State v. Malley (1979)
See, State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331 , 246 N.W.2d 48 (1976).
green
State v. Schreiber (1997)
See State v. Bott, 310 Minn. 331, 335 , 246 N.W.2d 48, 52 (1976) (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)); State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248 , 254- 55, 194 N.W.2d 276, 280-81 (1972) (placing the burden of persuasion on defendant of proving insanity did not violate the defendants’ due process rights (citing Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952))).
green
Weiby v. Wente (1978)
See, State v. Bott, Minn., note 3, 246 N.W.2d 48, 53 (1976), discussing with approval Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence, which is identical to the present Minnesota rule.