Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Yaritz, 791 N.W.2d 138.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
13 (first-degree criminal sexual conduct—penetration—use of force), none of his convictions met the definition of “force.”6 But we concluded in State v. Yaritz that, in certain cases , the state can satisfy the “with force or violence” requirement if it proves first-degree criminal sexual conduct under circumstances where the victim had “a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Luke Joshua Cain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
–47 (Minn. 1982) (stating that determining whether severe aggravating circumstances exist “must be based on our collective, collegial D-8 experience in reviewing a large number of criminal appeals from all the judicial districts”); (incorporating Norton in recognizing that the district court’s decision whether the offense occurred in a particularly serious way depends “[i]n the final analysis [on] an appellate court’s decision whether a particular durational departure is justified .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-18 (Minn. 1983) (murder); (criminal sexual conduct), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
[was an] inappropriate bas[is] for departure where those facts were already taken into account by the legislature in determining the degree of seriousness of the offense”); (“A defendant’s high degree of planning is a recognized aggravating factor.”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Dean Robert Hoversten, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Hoversten admitted that he invaded his daughter’s “zone of privacy” by sexually abusing her in her own bedroom, on her own bed, where she “should have felt safe.” 6 Likewise, subjecting a victim to multiple forms of penetration is a valid aggravating factor, particularly when the case involves “intrusive and numerous acts of penetration.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
24, 1987); 145 (Minn. App. 2010) (concluding that the use of chloroform as a dangerous weapon in committing a sexual assault provided a legally permissible basis for an upward departure), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 138, 142 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that district court’s aggravating-factor findings provide reasons explaining substantial-and- compelling basis for departure), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(recognizing that a high degree of planning is an aggravating factor) , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Here, in addition to finding appellant guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, the jury also found that appellant subjected the victim to “multiple forms of penetration.” It is well settled that “multiple forms of penetration is a valid aggravating factor in first-degree criminal sexual conduct cases.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-18 (Minn. 1983); review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The fact that a defendant has subjected a victim to multiple forms of penetration is a valid aggravating factor in first-degree criminal sexual conduct cases.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A defendant’s high degree of planning is a recognized aggravating factor.”), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, -23 (Minn. 2009); (relying on collective experience to determine whether aggravating factor was justified).
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Distinguished Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[u]nder [the supreme court’s] sentencing jurisprudence, it is permissible for the district court to impose an upward sentencing departure if the evidence shows that the defendant committed the offense in question in a particularly serious way.” Edwards, d at 601; review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” d 138, 143 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” d 138, 143 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(concluding that the district court was permitted to consider defendant’s use of chloroform on the victim as an aggravating factor, notwithstanding the fact that the use of chloroform constituted an uncharged offense), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by