DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393.

146 citing documents.

  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Holliday 745 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 2008
    to sustain convictions.”
  • State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Furthermore, an “appellate court will not interfere with a [district] court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.”
  • State v. Perleberg 736 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Perleberg 736 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options,”
  • State v. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Hall 722 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2006
    That doctrine, “derived from the common law, is the principle that a defendant may be convicted if it is proved he intended to injure one person but actually harmed another.” 9 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice — Criminal Law and Procedure § 44.8 (3d ed.2001); , 395 n. 1 (Minn.1998) (“The doctrine of transferred intent is frequently applied in cases where the accused intends to kill one person, but, because of bad aim, kills another.”).
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
    (holding this aggravating factor to be present where group of four traveled in vehicle to victim’s house, defendant shot at house out of the window of the vehicle, and all departed in the vehicle).
  • State v. Vang 700 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Vang 700 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    in which the supreme court held that a defendant may be guilty of assaulting victims who are unaware of the defendant’s acts, or even unconscious at the time.
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Slaughter 691 N.W.2d 70 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “A trial judge sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, and the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.”
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
    We generally “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.”
  • Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of D.B.X. 638 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (police “invite suppression” by making express or implied promises to juveniles during custodial interrogations); (it is “not professional police tactics to imply to juveniles that ‘then-best interests’ lie in confessing, unless the police sincerely mean it and back up the statement with doeumentable proof of leniency”), rev’d on other grounds
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In the Welfare of T.N.Y. 632 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Myers 627 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Myers 627 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Hofer 614 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Sanders 598 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 1999
    We “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.” ().
  • Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
  • Davis v. State 595 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
    (upholding six convictions for second-degree assault after defendant fired shots at principal’s home and defendant stated his intention was only to “scare” principal).