DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martinez, 319 N.W.2d 699.

55 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    d 699, 701 (Minn. 1982).
  • Minn. 2020
    –98 (Minn. 1984) (affirming a durational departure based on “particularly perverted, especially outrageous” sexual abuse, in part, because each act of abuse involved multiple forms of penetration); −01 (Minn. 1982) (concluding that the defendant committed first-degree criminal sexual conduct with particular cruelty when he subjected the complainant to multiple forms of penetration).
  • State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (“[A] double upward durational departure is appropriate on finding particular cruelty alone.” (citing State v. 12 Martinez, (“We need not decide whether the facts cited by the state made the victim in this case ‘particularly vulnerable’ because it is clear to us that the defendant in this case committed the offense in a ‘particularly cruel’ way.”))).
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
    (victim forced to submit to various types of sexual contact and penetration over two-hour period); (over two-hour period, victim com pelled to engage in various types of sexual contact and penetration, culminating in ejaculation onto her body).
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    where it was argued that a sentence should be vacated because a sentencing report was not filed in a timely manner, the supreme court stated: Even if the report was filed late (and it does not appear that it was), the court’s statements on the record at the time of sentencing adequately explained the cour
  • State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    However, because this matter was tried to the court and detailed written findings and conclusions were made to support the convictions and because the trial court’s comments at the sentencing hearing referred to severe and aggravating circumstances enumerated in the transcript, would apply.
  • State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Vance 392 N.W.2d 679 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
  • Stephens v. State 369 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Stephens v. State 369 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    -47 (Minn.1982); -77 (Minn.1982)
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he legislature, to a great extent, has considered the vulnerability of the victims of rapes in determining the seriousness to attach to rape offenses in general and in distinguishing rape offenses by degree.”
  • State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Southard 360 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 359 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    The reasons for departure were stated by the trial court at sentencing, and “the court’s statements on the record at the time of sentencing adequately explained the court’s reasoning.”
  • State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
  • Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Peterson 329 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Peterson 329 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Brusven 327 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Brusven 327 N.W.2d 591 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 327 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Van Gorden 326 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Van Gorden 326 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Morales 324 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Morales 324 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1982
    In three recent cases - -we have discussed the issue of when and to what extent departure is justified in sex cases.
  • Davis v. State 324 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1982
  • Davis v. State 324 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Herberg 324 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
    In three recent cases - -we have discussed the issue of when and to what extent departure is justified in sex cases.
  • State v. Profit 323 N.W.2d 34 Minn. 1982