Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bowser, 307 N.W.2d 778.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(quotation omitted) (emphasis added); (stating in a criminal-sexual-conduct case that “[e]ither the pain or the minimal injury would be sufficient to establish bodily harm under section 609.02” (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See State v. Bowser , (holding that “[e]ither the pain or the minimal injury” of “the laceration of [the victim’s] hymen, which resulted in bleeding” is “sufficient to establish bodily harm under section 609.02 and therefore personal injury under section 609.341, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Erik Everett Wenzel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(applying this prin cipal to vacate a conviction of criminal sexual conduct), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In State v. Bowser, the supreme court affirmed a conviction for first -degree CSC where the defendant made a sufficiency-of-the evidence challenge and the victim testified that “she felt considerable pain when defendant first penetrated her and the evidence also 5 established that she suffered some personal injury in the form of the laceration of her hymen, which resulted in bleeding.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Either a “minimal amount of physical pain,” or a “minimal injury [is] su fficient to establish bodily harm under section 609.02,”
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“These factors are also considered on appeal in determining whether the [district] court erred in the exercise of its discretion.” (), review denied (Minn. June 9,1987).
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the defendant was convicted of violating both Minn.Stat.
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
Only a “minimal amount of physical pain or injury” is necessary in order “to satisfy the definition of ‘bodily harm.’ ” (holding that evidence that the defendant drugged the victim before he raped her sufficiently impaired her physical condition in order to satisfy the definition of “bodily harm”); (stating that the victim’s testimony that she “felt considerable pain” when the defendant “first penetrated her” and evidence of a laceration of the victim’s hymen sufficed to uphold a conviction for
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
See State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 230, 237 , (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to constitute “bodily harm” when the victim experienced pain from being struck); (finding sufficient evidence of physical injury based on a bruise); (concluding that sufficient evidence of personal injury existed when the victim felt considerable pain with sexual penetration and based on a laceration that resulted in bleeding).
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jarvis 649 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 616 N.W.2d 720 Minn. 2000
See, -90 (Minn.1979) (holding that it would violate § 609.04 to enter four convictions for one act of criminal sexual conduct); (holding that section 609.04 prohibits multiple convictions under differ ent sections of the same statute for a single criminal act against the same' victim).
State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lund 474 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See, (seven-year-old conviction); (use of nine-year-old conviction); (use of 10-year-old conviction where defendant served time).
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Laughnan v. State 404 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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. Beard 380 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Beard 380 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Although the statute does not strictly define either of these sexual convictions as an included offense of the other, (citing Minn.Stat.
State v. Mattson 356 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Mattson 356 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court defined personal injury as “either pain or minimal injury.” Wiken testified her breast was painful, red and bruised for a few days following the incident.
State v. Goodridge 352 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1984
State v. Goodridge 352 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Ture 353 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1984
State v. Reinke 343 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
State v. Reinke 343 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1984
where we upheld a conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree on the basis of personal injury in the form of evidence that the victim’s hymen was lacerated and evidence that the victim experienced pain when the defendant first penetrated her.
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
State v. LaTourelle 343 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
*284 defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual conduct on the basis of a single act.
State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
(upholding a conviction under this subdivision where the complainant testified that she felt considerable pain when the defendant first penetrated her and where the evidence also established that she suffered some physical injury in the form of laceration of her hymen).
State v. Plan 316 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1982
State v. Plan 316 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1982
State v. Hudson 311 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1981
State v. Hudson 311 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 1981