Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Broten, 343 N.W.2d 38.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court wanted to impose a [particular] sentence .
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Generally, in determining whether to depart durationally in sentencing, a court must decide “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Generally, when determining whether to depart, a district court must decide “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Generally, when deciding whether to depart, *694 the district court must decide whether the defendant’s conduct was “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Generally, in determining whether to depart in sentencing, a district court must decide “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
which provides support for this conclusion.
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lamar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lámar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lamar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lámar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(arson was more serious because surrounding property owners were directly damaged and others indirectly); (robbery was particularly outrageous because it was committed in a day care center, with children as witnesses).
State v. Myers 416 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1987
State v. Myers 416 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1987
The leading arson case involving a
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See (where defendant took approximately $20,000 from the same victim in a single ongoing scheme, it was not error to depart upward); (where the conduct underlying the arson conviction was more serious than that underlying a typical arson conviction, upward departure was appropriate).
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hanson 405 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Booth 357 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Booth 357 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Northard 348 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Northard 348 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984