Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hesse, 281 N.W.2d 491.

51 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (vacating second-degree criminal -sexual-conduct conviction under 609.04 because sexual intercourse “by definition involves not just penetration but also contact”).
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
    (upholding convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and incest for the same behavioral incident).
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    § 609.04); (fondling was “incidental to the act of sexual penetration and not the kind of other sexual conduct which justifies a separate conviction in addition to that for the sexual intercourse”).
  • State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Wilbur 445 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • In Re the Welfare of W.W.M. 400 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Tuomi 396 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Finally, J.P.’s statements to Deputy Fisher were admissible as corroborative evidence of the victim’s
  • Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    such evidence is admissible for corroborative purposes where the victim of a sexual assault is present, under oath and subject to cross-examination.
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sandberg 392 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hagen 391 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Campa 390 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Powe v. State 389 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reynolds 386 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reynolds 386 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Weaver 386 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Haase 341 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Haase 341 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 1984
    (offense of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and incest are different and neither is necessarily included in the other).
  • State v. Dudrey 330 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Dudrey 330 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gardner 328 N.W.2d 159 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Wrightington 323 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Wrightington 323 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Beeks 311 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Beeks 311 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1981
    The leading Minnesota case dealing with admission of details of a complaint by the victim of a
  • State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Harding 304 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 1981
    torious contention is that the conviction for the lesser of the two offenses must be vacated pursuant to section 609.04, which, “bars convicting a defendant twice for the same offense (or of one offense and a necessarily included offense) on the basis of the same act.” The state, contends that the two acts of sexual penetration proved (anal and vaginal) were distinct, that neither was incidental to the other, and that therefore both convictions should be allowed to stand.
  • State v. Kruse 302 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Kruse 302 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Terry 295 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1980
    appeal after remand, cert.
  • State v. Gatlin 295 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Gatlin 295 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
    (incest requires proof of facts which criminal sexual conduct in the first degree does not and vice versa); (aggravated forgery-uttering requires proof of facts other than those required for theft by check and vice versa).
  • State v. Sanders 281 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1979