Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gardner, 328 N.W.2d 159.
- State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Peter Joseph Nayquonabe
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
nly on victim’s uncorroborated testimony); (citing the Ani statement, noting the presence of corroborating evidence, and concluding, “this is not such a case”); (affirming conviction based on corroborated testimony); –40 (Minn. 1983) (same); (same); (same); –95 (Minn. 1982) (same).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Defendant’s chemical dependency problem and his dangerousness are not the sort of factors which can be relied upon as justifying a durational departure.”).
- State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that particular vulnerability of the victim must be a substantial factor in accomplishing the crime in order to support an upward departure).
- State v. Valtierra 718 N.W.2d 425 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Valtierra
718 N.W.2d 425
Minn. 2006
ant also said that he had blacked out in connection with an earlier conviction for aggravated robbery); Edwards, d at 273 (defendant opened the door to questions about stabbing an off-duty police officer when defendant, during direct examination by his own counsel, testified about having been stabbed and how he therefore was particularly fearful of being stabbed again); (defendant's counsel, by asking a witness on cross-examination about an instance in which the witness attacked the defendant, o
- Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
-
Rairdon v. State
557 N.W.2d 318
Minn. 1996
age, infirmity, or reduced physical or mental capacity, which was known or should have been known to the offender”); State v. Campbell, *327 -61 (Minn.1985) (concluding that vulnerability was a valid factor when the defendant knew or should have known the victim had below-normal mental capabilities, which helped the defendant gain entry to the victim’s home)
- State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
- State v. Bolte 530 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1995
- State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
-
State v. Skinner
450 N.W.2d 648
Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(evidence of prior conviction admitted where conviction was recent, defendant’s credibility was a key issue, evidence did not have the effect of keeping defendant’s testimony from the jury, and conviction was not for similar offense).
- State v. Dana 422 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1988
- State v. Dana 422 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1988
- State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Lindberg 408 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
- State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
- State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Johnston 390 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Henderson 382 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Henderson 382 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Campbell 367 N.W.2d 454 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Campbell
367 N.W.2d 454
Minn. 1985
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II.D.b.(l) (1984); (vulnerability of victim not an aggravating factor unless it was a “substantial factor” in defendant’s accomplishment of crime).
- State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Gist 358 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Gist
358 N.W.2d 664
Minn. 1984
(stating there was no substantial basis to believe victim’s epilepsy was a substantial factor in the defendant’s accomplishing sexual penetration); (“regardless of our ages, we are all equally vulnerable in the face of a knife”).
- State v. Winship 355 N.W.2d 324 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Winship
355 N.W.2d 324
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
recognizes this supports her claim.
- State v. Saharath 355 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Saharath
355 N.W.2d 312
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 450 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
- State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
- State v. Rachuy 349 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1984
- State v. Rogers 347 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Rogers 347 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1984