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. Brusven, 327 N.W.2d 591.

68 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    In contrast to Perez’s reliance on Nelson, the state’s are more persuasive.
  • Minn. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    593 (Minn. 1982), appellant argues that “because [a] defendant’s criminal history is considered in determining the presumptive sentence, it generally would be unfair to consider that criminal history again in determining whether or not to depart.” But the Brusven case involved the improper imposition of an upw
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    However, “[t]he fact that defendant himself was sexually abused as a child is a social factor that cannot be relied upon as a ground for departing.” 7 (Minn. 1982).
  • State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
  • State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
    (citing Peterson, d at 60 -94 (Minn.1982)).
  • State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
    (holding it was unfair for the trial court to rely upon factors already considered in the presumptive sentence as a basis for a du-rational departure).
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (disallowing consideration of age and resultant vulnerability of criminal sexual conduct victim because legislature already considered those factors in categorizing offense severity levels).
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
  • Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
    Although the victim’s age is generally not allowed to support a departure when age is already an element of the offense, we have also held that in certain cases the youth of the victim, in conjunction with other factors, may justify a departure.
  • State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (existence of a mitigating factor does not obligate court to order probation or impose a shorter sentence); (even where evidence indicates a defendant is particularly amenable to treatment in a probationary setting, a reviewing court generally will not disturb imposition of presumptive sentence).
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (because criminal history is considered in determining presumptive sentence, “it generally would be unfair to consider [it] again” as support for departure).
  • State v. Chaklos 522 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Chaklos 522 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (ordinarily it is inappropriate for sentencing court to depart based on same facts used to determine presumptive sentence).
  • State v. Rodriguez 505 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    “[I]t is inappropriate for the sentencing court to use as a basis for departure the same facts which are relied upon in determining the presumptive sentence.”
  • State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
    (ordinarily inappropriate for sentencing court to use as basis for departure the same facts relied upon in.determining presumptive sentence).
  • State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Bingham 406 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Schroeder 401 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Casady 392 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Appellant correctly points out that ordinarily “it is inappropriate for the sentencing court to use as a basis for departure the same facts which are relied upon in determining the presumptive sentence.”
  • State v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Olson 372 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Ahern 349 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Ahern 349 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984