Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Morales, 324 N.W.2d 374.

86 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. 2024
Even though we had previously recognized that crimes occurring in the victim’s zone of privacy could justify an upward departure under certain circumstances, see, we found those “cases of forcible rape in which strangers intruded into the victim’s zone of privacy” inapposite to cases of incest that usually occur at home.
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that the victim’s testimony, medical testimony, and the fact that the defendant ejaculated supported the jury’s conclusion that “penetration in fact occurred”).
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
See, (upholding upward durational sentencing departure when the defendant “invaded the zone of privacy which surrounded [the victim’s] home”); (upholding upward durational sentencing departure because the offense was committed at a daycare in front of children
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
-18 (Minn.1983); -77 (Minn.1982); , 146 n. 3 (Minn.1982).
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
State v. Broulik 606 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2000
State v. Givens 544 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1996
State v. Givens 544 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1996
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
while victim more vulnerable to sexual assault was an aggravating factor); (robbery taking place in victim’s home was aggravating factor); (sexual assault in victim’s backyard violated victim’s zone of privacy and was an aggravating factor).
State v. Hartfield 459 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
State v. Hartfield 459 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1990
(holding that in raping a woman in her backyard, the defendant did not just invade her in a sexual way but also invaded the zone of privacy which surrounded her house, thereby justifying an upward durational departure).
State v. Dalsen 444 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Dalsen 444 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hennum 428 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Jurgens 424 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Volk 421 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Dick 419 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
but see State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 421 , (“in a murder case it is preeminently the trial court’s duty in the exercise of its discretion to determine what lesser degrees of homicide to submit”).
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ostlund 416 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
This clearly qualifies as a more “serious” type of rape case, *918 and serves as an aggravating factor to consider in a durational departure.
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, (departure from the presumptive sentence for criminal sexual conduct conviction upheld when assault with a dangerous weapon occurred in the victim’s backyard, invading her zone of privacy, and caused the victim fear of great bodily harm); pet.
State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The departure reasons include (1) the infliction of gratuitous cruelty on the victims, -77 (Minn.1982); (2) the invasion of the victims’ zone of privacy by assaulting them in their own homes, (3) the particular vulnerability of the victims and th
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court indicated: In this case the rape was, as the trial court noted, typical in some ways.
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. State 393 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. State 393 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The crimes were within the zone of privacy of the Davis household, and the children were victimized by the crime, -36 (Minn.1982).
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. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Titworth 381 N.W.2d 510 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant’s for the proposition that the “typical” rape involves multiple penetration is misplaced.