Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kvale, 302 N.W.2d 650.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 650, 653 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Antwan Christopher Jones, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Aggravated robbery “requires only that the use of force or threats precede or accompany either the taking or the carrying away and that the force or threats be used to overcome the victim’s resistance or compel his acquiescence in the taking or carrying away.” State v. Kvale
Explained Minn. 2020
In State v. Kvale, we recognized that “[t]he robbery statute speaks of using force or threats to compel acquiescence in either the taking or the carrying away of the property ,” and not “merely us[ing] force to escape.” –53 (Minn. 1981).
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Townsend 925 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Kvale , , 653 (Minn. 1981) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–53 (Minn. 1981); –04 (Minn. App. 6 1999), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Also, the statute requires only that the force or threats “precede or accompany either the taking or the carrying away and that the force or threats be used to overcome the victim’s resistance or compel his acquiescence in the taking or carrying away.” (emphasis added).
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-52 (Minn.1981), the defendant argued that even though he took the victim’s money and cut the victim’s throat, there was no robbery because he did not use force to facilitate the taking.
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Admittedly, the supreme court has recognized that the “use of force in escaping only [may be] insufficient to constitute robbery because it is clear from the statute that one must do more than merely use force to escape with stolen property.” -53 (Minn.1981).
State v. Meech 400 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Meech 400 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ford 381 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Ford 381 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(use of prior conviction for aggravated robbery when offense charged was aggravated robbery); (use of rape conviction when offense charged was criminal sexual conduct in third degree); Brouillette, (use of prior conviction for criminal sexual condu
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rose 353 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nunn 351 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
State v. Charlton 338 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1983
8 State v. Hines, 270 Minn. 30, 35-36 , State ex rel.
State v. Oquist 327 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1982
State v. Oquist 327 N.W.2d 587 Minn. 1982
State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981
State v. Gorham 306 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1981

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by