Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vance, 765 N.W.2d 390.

63 citing documents.

State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[W]hen a reviewing court concludes that a district court based a departure on both valid and invalid factors, a remand is required unless it determines the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent reliance on the invalid factors.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
State v. Mahkuk, *602 (“An erroneous jury instruction does not require a new trial if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quoting Mahkuk, d at 683 ) (internal quotations omitted)).
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-96 (Minn.2009) (affirming double departure after rejecting presence-of-a-nonwitnessing-ehild as a proper ground because the remaining two factors independently supported the departure and it was “reasonable to conclude that the district court would have imposed the same sentence”).
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
State v. Matthews 779 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 2010
(discussing that a child witnesses a murder by either seeing or hearing the murder).
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
13, 1989); -94 (Minn.2009) (noting that compromised ability to flee may be aggravating factor).