Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carter, 289 N.W.2d 454.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
3 Powell concedes that “M.C.’s testimony is sufficient to prove lack of consent.” 11 To prove coercion, the state does not need to show that the defendant “us[ed] actual force [or] verbalized threats of force.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To prove coercion, the state does not need to show that the defendant “us[ed] actual force nor verbalized threats of force.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
(Minn. 28 Nevertheless, even if the prosecutor’s remarks constitute an error that is plain, we conclude that the State has proved that any error did not affect Segura’s substantial rights.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
14 (1998) (emphasis added) ; see also State v. Carter , (holding defendant, although using neither force nor verbalized threats of force, intentionally created an atmosphere of fear which caused complainant to submit to sexual advances) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
14; see, (affirming defendant’s conviction of fourth -degree criminal sexual conduct, holding that 8 the element of force or coercion was established by evidence that complainant awoke, with part of her clothing removed, and with defendant “lying partially nude on top of her”); (affirming defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, holding that, “although neither using actual force nor verbalized threats of force,” 35 -year-old defendant, who drove 15 -year-old complainant to
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., State v. Solberg , (recognizing that defendant’s “use of his overwhelming physical size and strength” to cause victim to submit to un wanted sexual contact “f its squarely within the statute’s prohibition of sexual assault by coercion”); (affirming criminal-sex ual-conduct conviction where defendant, “although neither using actual force nor verbaliz ed threats of force, intentionally created an atmosphere of fear” during sexual assault); (holding that defendant’s us
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Senen Guerrero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kasper 405 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(defendant, although using neither actual force nor verbalized threats of force, intentionally created an atmosphere of fear which caused complainant to submit to sexual advances); State v. Meec
State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Streeter 377 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The State is allowed to anticipate and rebut arguments of the defense, and that is all that occurred here.
State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Daby 359 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
State v. Booker 348 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1984
(upholding admission of evidence concerning the fear which a sexual assault victim experienced when the defendant made her help change a flat tire on his car after the act of coerced penetration).
State v. Erickson 313 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1981
State v. Erickson 313 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1981
where we upheld a conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree on similar facts.