Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Van Gorden, 326 N.W.2d 633.

94 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lablanche Vanengen Minn. 2024
Our case law explains one of the rationales behind this recognized reason for an upward departure: a victim must “contend psychologically not only with the fact that she was sexually assaulted in a brutal way but also with the fact that her home is no longer the island of security that she perhaps thought it was.” (recognizing the zone-of-privacy aggravating factor in a criminal sexual conduct case); –29 (Minn. 2017) 6 (recognizing application of the zone-of-privacy aggravating factor when “the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e .g., Dillon, d at 597-98; -64 (Minn. 1982).
Minn. 2020
–96 (Minn. 1987) (affirming a greater-than-double durational departure in first-degree criminal sexual conduct case when the victim was vulnerable, the victim was treated with particular cruelty, the offense happened in the victim’s zone of privacy, and the victim suffered serious psychological damage); (affirming a greater-than-double durational departure in first-degree criminal sexual conduct case when the victim was vulnerable, the victim was treated with particular cruelty, and the offense
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
State v. Parker 901 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2017
the victim’s zone of privacy.” Parker also asserts that, historically, we have only acknowledged two rationales to justify the use of the zone-of-privacy factor in enhancing a. sentence: (1) a recognition that a crime committed in a victim’s zone of privacy causes the victim to fear remaining in that zone of privacy after the crime occurs, (“[T]he victim [had] to contend psychologically not only with the fact that she was assaulted in a brutal way but also with the fact that her home is no longe
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d AIDS); State v. 16 Glaraton, (affirming a greater than triple departure when defendant stuck a gun in the victim’s mouth and rectum, “inflicted gratuitous physical injury,” urinated on the victim’s face and forced the victim to lie in the urine, and ridiculed the victim’s religious beliefs); -35 (Minn. 1982) (affirming greater than double departure when defendant inflicted a “serious and permanent” injury, subjected victim to multiple forms of penetration, and invaded victim’s zone of privacy)
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]e attach particular significance to the fact that permanent injury was inflicted.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
2.D.3.b(1) (listing particular vulnerability of the victim as an aggravating factor that can justify a more severe sentehce); -35 (Minn.1982) (recognizing that subjecting a victim to multiple forms of sexual penetration can be an aggravating factor).
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. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See, d *775 386, 389 (Minn.1984); review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Glaraton, d at 832-35 (penetration of victim in three different ways was aggravating factor supporting greater than quadruple departure); -35 (Minn. 1982) (three types of penetration was aggra *532 vating factor supporting more than triple durational departure).
Perkins v. State 540 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Perkins v. State 540 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Glaraton, 425 ,N.W.2d 831, 834 (Minn.1988)
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. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(sixty-six-year-old victim).
State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
as authority for this position: Seriousness and permanence of a victim’s injuries may be an aggravating factor justifying a durational departure even if injury is an element of the crime.
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ces, victim subjected to multiple penetrations, and victim permanently scarred); *278 (Minn.1987) (victim subjected to multiple penetrations, permanently injured, threatened with death, and suffered psychological damage); Norton, d at 146 (victim threatened with death and psychologically damaged, victim’s zone of privacy invaded); -35 (Minn.1982) (victim subjected to multiple penetrations, permanently injured, and victim’s zone of privacy invaded); (victim subjected to various types of penetrati
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(“[T]he injury inflicted nonetheless can be considered as an aggravating factor in this case because of its serious and permanent nature.”) Cotton, as a result of appellant’s act, lost hearing in the right ear and suffers partial facial paralysis.
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Hicks 432 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Glaraton 425 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1988
State v. Glaraton 425 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1988
Relevant cases in which we have upheld greater than double durational departures include:
State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(more than triple the presumptive sentence affirmed where victim was particularly vulnerable due to her age (66) and where defendant acted with particular cruelty — injury of a *544 serious and permanent nature inflicted, where victim was forced to submit to multiple forms of sexual penetration; defendant