Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Robideau, 796 N.W.2d 147.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “review a decision by the district court ‘to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Prosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouching testimony from trial witnesses.” rev’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Prosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouching testimony from trial witnesses.” rev’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Rosillo relies here, as he did in the district court, d 147, 152 (Minn. 2011), -96 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Prosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouching testimony from trial witnesses.” rev’d on other grounds
King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An offense is committed “in the presence of” a minor only if “the child sees, hears, or otherwise witnesses some portion of the commission of the offense in question.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
9 “Prosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouching testimony from trial witnesses.” rev’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Blair Benedict Oberton Minn. 2024
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr. Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Henry Albert Allison, Jr. Minn. 2024
“The interpretation of case law is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.” d 147, 150 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Allen Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The interpretation of case law is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Eh Doh Par Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Eh Doh Par Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Prosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouching testimony from trial witnesses.” rev’d on other grounds
Raymond Clyde Robideau, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 95 (Minn. App. 2010), rev’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Robideau , Best, d at 427.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Eddie Niles Hubbard, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But, when the jury found Hubbard guilty of first -degree manslaughter, it also found that “the defendant’s act was committed in the presence of a child.” “[C]ommission of an offense in the p resence of a child may be a valid reason to depart from the presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Applying this rule, this court has held that “[p]rosecutors may not elicit credibility-vouc hing testimony from trial witnesses.” State v. Robideau , rev’d on other grounds
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
State v. Robideau , , 150 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A defendant commits a crime “in the presence” of a child if the child “saw, heard, or otherwise witnessed the offense,” or “some portion of the commissi on of the offense in question.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But appellate courts “review a decision by the district court to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has observed that “a durational departure may be warranted when an offense is committed in the presence of a child in two situations.”
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Presence of children is a valid aggravating factor when a child can “see, hear, or otherwise witness any portion of the commission of the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A defendant commits a crime “in the presence” of a child if the child “saw, heard, or otherwise witnessed the offense,” 3 Vance, d at 394, or “some portion of the commission of the offense in question,” (emphasis added).
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012