Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 159 N.W.2d 892.

29 citing documents.

Minn. 2022
Put differently, we focus “on the proportionality of the crime to the punishment.” Mitchell, d at 489; (same); (same).
A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Richmond , (cautioning that it is not for appellate courts to “fix” a statutory scheme by adding or removing language), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007); (recognizing that definition of crimes lies within exclusive province of legislature).5 By our decision to day, we do not intend to minimize the seriousness of human trafficking.
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
3 (cautioning that it is not for the appellate courts to “fix” a statutory scheme by adding or removing language (citing State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462 , (recognizing that the definition of crimes lies within the exclusive province of the legislature))), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007).
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 845 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2014
On the contrary, he is expected to exercise discretion and common sense to the end that if, for example, one is a young first offender and the other older, with a criminal record, or one played a lesser and the other a dominant role, one the instigator and the other a follower, the prosecutor can and should take such factors into account....” State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 464-65 , (quoting Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 481-82 (D.C.Cir.1967)); (order) (“Generally, a prosecutor has br
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
Specifically, Juarez’s sentence is not cruel because it is not “out of all proportion to the nature of the crime,” (quoting State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462-63 , ), in light of the gravity of the offense, his recidivism, and the existence of a heinous element.
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462 , (recognizing that the definition of crimes and penalties lies within the province of the legislature).
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Claude v. Collins 507 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. *458 Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 464-65
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
In State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , this court stated: It is the province of the legislature to declare what acts deemed by the lawmakers inimical to the public welfare shall constitute crimes, and to prohibit the same and provide the penalties therefor.
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
State v. Sharich 209 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1973
This court has previously ruled in State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , that, in the absence of purposeful discrimination, discriminatory enforcement does not exist in prostitution cases simply by the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to proceed under the state statute, which makes prostitution a gross misdemeanor, rather than under the city ordinance, which
State v. Kalvig 209 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1973
McLaughlin v. State 190 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1971
McLaughlin v. State 190 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1971
See, State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , (upholding a 1-year penalty for prostitution); State v. Moilen, 140 Minn. 112 , (upholding a 5-year penalty for criminal syndicalism) , 1 A second consideration for us is the propriety of overturning the trial judge’s decision.
State v. Ott 189 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1971
State v. Ott 189 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1971
See, State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , 159 N. W. (2d) 892 ; State v. Mathiasen, supra.
State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
This court in State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462 , 159 N. W. (2d) 892, 894 , said with reference to cruel and unusual punishment: “It is the province of the legislature to declare what acts deemed by the lawmakers inimical to the public welfare shall constitute crimes, and to prohibit the same and provide the penalties therefor.
Steeves v. State 178 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1970
Steeves v. State 178 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1970
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 , 78 S. Ct. 590 , 2 L. ed. (2d) 630.” State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461, 462 , 159 N. W. (2d) 892, 894 .
State v. Dailey 169 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1969
State v. Dailey 169 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1969
3 The resulting difference in procedure and penalty does create some problems, to be sure, as we experienced in State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , 159 N. W. (2d) 892 .
State v. Andrews 165 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1969
State v. Andrews 165 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1969
State v. Anderson, 280 Minn. 461 , 159 N. W. (2d) 892 .