Cited by

is usually proved by circumstantial evidence.” (d 616, 617 (Minn. 1984) ) (other citation omitted), aff’d, (“We have long held that the proof of knowledge may be made by circumstantial evidence.” ( (Gallagher, Frank T., J., concurring specially) (noting that, although knowledge must be proved to sustain the conviction at issue, “the jury [could] find the existence of such knowledge from any relevant circumstances pointing to the probability that the defendant obtained knowledge”) (other cit

The dissent’s reliance on State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 25 , -25 (1961) (Gallagher, J., concurring specially), and United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 563 , 91 S.Ct.

See, e.g., Al-Naseer, d at 683 (implying a mens rea element for criminal vehicular homicide for leaving the scene of an accident); State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 17 , (implying a scienter requirement in an obscenity statute).

State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 17 , (interpreting statute to punish only those “who are in some manner aware of the character of the material” they attempt to distribute).

In State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , we gave authority to the criteria articulated by Chief Justice Charles Loring in his dissenting opinion in State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co., 221 Minn. 246, 265

While it is within our power to do so, see State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (Minn.1961) (holding that this court is not bound to follow interpretations of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Minnesota Constitution), we decline to recognize a pro-tectable liberty interest in reputation alone and instead embrace the federal “stigma-plus” standard.

See State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961) (Minnesota’s due process standard may be developed independent of federal law); (declining to lower Minnesota’s standards for searches and seizures to federal level); (

bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when interpreting the Minnesota Constitution, “[w]e should exercise our own judicial judgment as to what we deem a violation of our own constitution.” State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co., 221 Minn. 246, 265 , quoted in State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961).

In an earlier obscenity case, State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , we held that obscenity was not protected by the first amendment, and that a prior obscenity statute was “not violative of the Constitution of the United States or of this state.” Id.

See State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961).

See, (double jeopardy clause); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981) (equal protection); O’ (rights of criminally accused); State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21-22 , -23 (1961) (due process); Davis v. Pierse, 7 Minn. 1 , 6-7 ( Gil.

1215, 1219 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); , 281 n. 14 (Minn.1981); O’ , 907 n. 14 (Minn.1977); State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961).

Accord, State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21

Although our state constitution may, on occasion, be interpreted as imposing stricter due process requirements than does the federal constitution (see, e. g., State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , [1961]), neither the language of our constitution nor the special circumstances of this case provoke such a stricter interpretation in the instant matter.

See, State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , 110 N. W. (2d) 514 ; Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29 , 16 S. Ct. 434 , 40 L. ed. 606; Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 , 77 S. Ct. 1304 , 1 L. ed. (2d) 1498; Kingsley Books Inc. v. Brown, 354 U. S. 436 , 77 S. Ct. 1325 , 1 L. ed. (2d) 1469; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 , 80 S. Ct. 215 , 4 L. ed. (2d)

628.18 and 628.19; State v. Mancino, 257 Minn. 580 , 102 N. W. (2d) 504 ; State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , 110 N. W. (2d) 514 ; State v. Kopetka, 265 Minn. 371 , 121 N. W. (2d) 783 ; 9 Dunnell, Dig.

For if the bookseller is criminally liable without knowledge of the contents, and the ordinance fulfills its purpose, he will tend to restrict the books he sells to those he has inspected; and thus the State will have imposed a restriction upon the distribution of constitutionally protected as well as obscene literature.” *281 We followed the Smith case in State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10 , 110 N. W. (2d) 514 , noting that § 617.24 did not by express words require knowledge or scienter as an element