Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rund, 896 N.W.2d 527.

105 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Substantia l and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendan t’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Subst antial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less se rious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating 8 “the terroristic- threats statute includes more than one mens rea: either the purpose of terrorizing or a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing”); d 592, 596 (Minn. 2008) (stating that reckless discharge under Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd.