Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ming Sen Shiue, 326 N.W.2d 648.

55 citing documents.

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
-39, 744 (Minn.1998); 327 (Minn.1998); -55 (Minn.1982).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-55 (Minn. 1982); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-55 (Minn.1982) (considering concealment “as an aggravating factor” when defendant covered the victim’s body with branches, twigs, leafy matter, and brush, making it difficult to find the body); (concluding that transportation of victim’s body in car trunk, combin
State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Rather, we have consistently required the “gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty ‘of a kind not usually associated "with the commission of the offense in question.’ ” Rourke, d at 922 (citation omitted); see also, -55 (Minn.1982) (noting that putting the victim in acute fear of death, killing her, and then concealing the body was particularly cruel); rev’d on other grounds, (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in i
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
t considered the question of whether a deliberating jury in a kidnapping trial was entitled to view videotapes that had been received in evidence of the defendant assaulting and engaging in discussions with his victims: “In analyzing this problem, it is necessary to keep in mind that the jury had a right to view the video tapes since they had been received into evidence.” (emphasis added).
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
holds that concealment of a body alone is an aggravating factor sufficient to justify an upward durational departure.
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
State v. Chomnarith 654 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2003
In response, the state argues that the photographs were relevant to the extent that they assisted the jury in remembering the testimony of each witness, cases in which the jury, during its deliberation, was allowed in the courtroom to rehear portions of testimony and review audiotape or videotape evidence.
State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
State v. Griller 583 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1998
29 .See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.2.b (aggravating factors); (concealment of body, remorse, and attempt to shift blame); Rairdon, d at 327 (particular cruelty); (concealment of body).
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
State v. Folkers 581 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 1998
(concealment of the victim’s body shows particular cruelty and is an appropriate aggravating circumstance justifying departure); , 806 n. 1 (Minn.1984) (generally, lack of remorse not a factor, but in some cases may be considered as evidence of cruelty or seriousness of
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
State v. Blasus 445 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 1989
rev. denied (Minn., July 6, 1988) (two year old boy beaten by adoptive mother after a long period of extreme abuse); (defendant kidnapped former teacher and bludgeoned to death a six year old boy who witnessed the crime); State v. Mikulanec, Hennepin County D.C.
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Concealment of the victim’s
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. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Butzin 404 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
*830 the court cited as factors justifying the upward departure: vulnerability of the child, lack of provocation, particular cruelty (thrown into a trunk and hit with metal bar), terror of one hour, conduct involving extensive planning, guile, cunning, and concealment.
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
1 Cases of this court upholding departures greater than 3 times the presumptive sentence duration when severe aggravating circumstances are present include: (upholding sentence of 480 months when presumptive sentence duration was 140 months, a sentence approximately 3.4 times greater than the presumptive .sentence); (upholding sentence of 180 months when maximum presumptive sentence duration was 54 months); State
State v. Litzinger 391 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Litzinger 391 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, -51 (Minn.1985) (zone of privacy; presence of young children); -55 (Minn.1982) (concealment of victim’s body).
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. Jackson 370 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Jackson 370 N.W.2d 72 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Farr 357 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Farr 357 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Shoebottom 355 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Shoebottom 355 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
as authority for its decision.
State v. Elkins 346 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1984
State v. Elkins 346 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1984
This offense-related conduct is somewhat analogous to concealment of the body of a murder victim
State v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983
State v. Kindem 338 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 1983
State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
State v. Richardson 332 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 1983
State v. Schifsky, 243 Minn. 533
State v. Schmit 329 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1983