DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28.

571 citing documents.

  • State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    The supreme court has identified a non-exclusive list of factors as relevant to amenability to probation, those being “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (providing list of factors to supplement Wright ⅛ dispositional departure system).
  • State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    The appropriate factors to consider in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probationary treatment include “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
  • State v. Hamacher 511 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Hamacher 511 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    See, (numerous factors, including defendant’s age and remorse, showed he was particularly amenable to treatment, thus supporting a dispositional departure).
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    Whether a defendant is amenable to probation depends upon “numerous factors, including age, * * * prior record, remorse, * * * cooperation, * * * attitude while in court, and the support of friends * * * or family.” ().
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In addition, “a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”
  • State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Patton 414 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Patton 414 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (staying a presumptively executed sentence).
  • State v. Van Ruler 378 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Van Ruler 378 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Biederstedt 367 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Biederstedt 367 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hemmings 360 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Hemmings 360 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
    For example, we stated, “Numerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary sett
  • State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    “numerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether the defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” Se
  • State v. Case 350 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Case 350 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Kinsky 348 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1984