Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Boettcher, 931 N.W.2d 376.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Paul Andrew Youngstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But a district court “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Raymond Greenbush Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The district court has broad discretion to award restitu tion, and the district court’ s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. D., Jr., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And the supreme court has clearly articulated that “a district court may order restitu tion only for losses that are di rectly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Judith Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But a district court “may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” (“The primary purpose of [restitution] is to restore crime victims to the same financial position they were in before the crime.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of M. S.-R Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[A] district court may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” State v. Boettcher
State of Minnesota v. Nadeem Malik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“To dete rmine ‘whether to order restitution’ and ‘the amount of restitution,’ a district court mu st consider the defendant’s ability to pay and the lo ss sustained by the victim of the crime.” State v. Boettcher , (quoting Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Lamont Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Second, the state acknowledges the supreme court’s opinion in State v. Boettcher, which held that “a district court may order restitution only for losses that are directly caused by, or follow naturally as a consequence of, the defendant’s crime.” 5 (Minn. 2019).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Eugene Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Jordan Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Boettcher , d 376, 381-82 (Minn. 2019).
State of Minnesota v. Ricia Monet Harvey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 defendant’s crime.” State v. Boettcher , (footnote omitted).