Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thao, 649 N.W.2d 414.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1e (2022)); 4 (2002) (rejecting an upward departure based on the aggravating factor that the drive-by shooting was significantly more serious than a typical drive-by shooting because the element of recklessness is built into the elements of the offense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We do not retry the facts; we assume the [fact-finder] believed the state’s witnesses and disb elieved the defendant’s witnesses.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We do no t retry the facts; we assume the jury 12 believed the state’s witnesses and disb elieved the defendant’s witnesses.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We do not retry the fact s; we assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved the defendant’s witnesses.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 747, 750 (Minn. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
4(a) (2008) because “the legislature accounted for a peace officer’s particular vulnerability when it enacted Minn. Stat. § 609.487 with more severe penalties”), (reversing a departure when the district court based the departure “on the statutory predicates of the crime to support the sentence departure”).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Likewise, the appellant was convicted of second-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting for the benefit of a gang based on evidence that he fired eight shots from a vehicle toward a basketball court in a busy public park, killing one basketball player.
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 Zone of privacy The supreme court has “clearly recognized the commission of a crime in the victim’s zone of privacy as justifying a more severe punishment.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–21 (Minn. 2002) (stating that defendant’s attempt to influence testimony supported finding of guilt).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Paul Haas Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The jury is best positioned to weigh the credibility of witnesses, and it is exclusively tasked with resolving conflicting testimony.
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
510 n. 1 (Minn.App.2010) ( , 420 (Minn.2002)), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Dalbec 789 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating that appellate court does not "retry the facts; we assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved the defendant’s witnesses”).
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
to support his contention that the risk to bystanders arising from the firing of six bullets into a crowd of seven people was a fact contemplated by the legislature when it set the punishment for drive-by shooting under Minn.Stat.
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
3 Among the boundaries identified for proper departure is that “[t]he reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.” -79 (Minn.2005) (-24 (Minn. 2002)); (holding that elements of lesser-included offenses “cannot support upward sentencing departures”).
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
In determining whether to durationally depart from the guideline sentence, the district court considers “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime described in the applicable statute.”
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003