Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jarvis, 665 N.W.2d 518.

20 citing documents.

Omar Auquil Muhammad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Lebert Clair McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In State v. Jarvis, the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that only a “minimal amount of physical pain or injury” is necessary in order “to satisfy the definition of ‘bodily harm.’” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Janell Al McCarter Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Treymane Weston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
13 -22 (Minn. 2003), Serrano-Santana, 2021 WL 1962886, at *6, and In re Welfare of C.A.G., No. A17- 0348, 2017 WL 3585125, at *4-5 (Minn. App. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Richard Wersinger, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 518, 521 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. William Daniel Finley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7, means any injury that weakens or damages an individual’s physical condition.” d 518, 522 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Chol Alfred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Either a “minimal amount of physical pain,” or a “minimal injury [is] su fficient to establish bodily harm under section 609.02,”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Leeroy McCulloch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cosmas Oseko Nyatwori Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7, means a ny injury that weakens or damages an individual’s physical condition.”
State of Minnesota v. David Lee Blanshan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Bodily harm exists if the victim of an assault perceives even a “minimal amount of physical pain.”
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Esteban Perez-Juarez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
522 (Minn. 2003) (noting that evidence of a “minimal amount of physical pain or injury” is sufficient).
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ely Ovis Emmanuel Ana El Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm from involuntary ingestion of drugs, which caused grogginess, inability to move, and disorientation); -15 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that victim sustained bodily harm because defendant’s contact caused bruising); Sta
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Anderson v. State 806 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
§ 645.16 (2010); -22 *860 (Minn.2003) (construing requirement of “physical injury” in first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute).
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
State v. Tscheu 758 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2008
Only a “minimal amount of physical pain or injury” is necessary in order “to satisfy the definition of ‘bodily harm.’ ” (holding that evidence that the defendant drugged the victim before he raped her sufficiently impaired her physical condition in order to satisfy the definition of “bodily harm”); (stating that the victim’s testimony that she “felt considerable