Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Profit, 323 N.W.2d 34.

75 citing documents.

State v. Winchell 363 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1985
we stated that committing a robbery in front of children was a “particularly outrageous act,” especially since the defendant knew in advance that children would be present.
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Had this gone to trial in Minnesota, “stacking” of mandatory minimum sentences could have been made upon conviction of multiple counts involving the use of a
State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Heidelberger 353 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Cermak 344 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1984
Kilcoyne v. State 344 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
Kilcoyne v. State 344 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1984
State v. Cermak 344 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1984
State v. Broten 343 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1984
State v. Broten 343 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1984
-37 (Minn.1982) (robbery was more serious than typical robbery because defendant committed the robbery in the presence of young children); (robbery was more serious than typical robbery because the defendants put more people in fear, kidnapped one person and assaulte
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
146 & n. 2 (Minn.1982).
State v. Kennedy 342 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1984
State v. Kennedy 342 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1984
Cases supporting the sentence include: -25 (Minn.1982).
State v. Deschampe 332 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1983
State v. Deschampe 332 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 1983
(vulnerability of 15-year-old girl was not significantly different from vulnerability of most rape victims, which the legislature has taken into account in setting the various degrees of criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Dudrey 330 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
State v. Dudrey 330 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1983
See, where we indicated that the fact that the defendant had penetrated the victim in two different ways was one factor which could be considered as supporting the departure in that case.
State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
(where we upheld a durational departure of 3.4 times the presumptive sentence because of the emotional trauma inflicted on the victim’s family by the kidnapping and the delay in the discovery of the body caused by the concealment of the body and because of the use by the defendant of the fact of concealment of the victim’s body to obtain plea agreement); (where we held that committing an assault on a nursery school teacher in front of the children was a “particularly outrageous act,” and that wh
State v. Montalvo 324 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1982
State v. Montalvo 324 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1982
which specifically provides that consecutive sentencing is not a departure in three situations, including “[w]hen the offender is convicted of multiple current felony convictions for crimes against different persons, and when the sentence for the most severe current conviction is executed according to the guidelines.”