Cited by

(noting that the district court “is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options”).

Assault-fear “does not require a findin g of actual harm to the victim.”

See State v. Hough , 1 During the sentencing hearing, the district court indicated that co unt three referred to depriving the children’s aunt of custody of G.R.

District courts have “a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing,” and are best situated “to evaluate an offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.” State v. Hough

“A [district] court’s decision regarding permissive, consecutive sentences will not be disturbed unless the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” d 393, 397 (Minn. 1998).

Relying on State v. Hough , Case maintains that “if the circumstances of the offense demonstrate a mitigated offense severity, then the district court can be seen as having abused its discretion in unfairly exaggerating the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” Hough does not support Case’ s position.

is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct.”

In a specific-intent case, the defendant’s intent, “as contrasted with the effect upon the victim, becomes the focal point for inquiry.” (quotation omitted).

“A [district] court’s decision regarding permissive, consecutive 4 sentences will not be disturbed unless the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”

is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.”

“[R]eview [of] criminal bench trials [is] the same as [that of] jury trials when determining whether the 2 evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”

(“While it is true that the effect of the assault on the victim is frequently introduced at trial as evidence of the defendant’s intent, it is not essential for a conviction under the statute.”).

“[R]eview [of] criminal bench trials [is] the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”

“[The jury] evaluates the credibility of witnesses and need not credit a defendant’s exculpatory testimony.”

“We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”

In assault-fear cases, “The intent of the actor, as contrasted with the effect upon the victim, becomes the focal point for inquiry.” (quotation omitted).

“We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”

Instead, he attacks the district court’s discretion “to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options,” because his argument is based on what he believes to be his less-egregious behavior than that of other offenders sentenced consecutively for crimes involving unborn children.

An assault-fear offense “does not require a finding of actual harm to the victim.”

Moore, d at 360 ; (“We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”).

Moore, d at 360 ; (“We review criminal bench trials the same as jury trials when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions.”).