Cited by

To determine whether certain conduct was significantly less serious than a typical offense, “it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.”

at 626, the lessened severity of the victim’s injuries, - 45 (Minn. 1984), the offender’s minor or passive role in the crime, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(2) (2022), or a victim acting as the first aggressor, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(1) (2022).7 None 6 While this practice is not appropriate for an upward departure given an offender’s constitutional righ

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than the typical offense, “it is proper for the [district] court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.”

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than the typical offense, “it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question, “it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

In assessing a motion for a downward durational departure, the relevant inquiry is whether a “defendant’s conduct is significantly less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense.” State v. Mattson , ().

is of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted); (stating that an offense is particularly serious when it involves “gratuitous cruelty which was unjustified within the context of the crime”).

Durational departure Generally, a durational departure is appropriate when a “defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

“The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was sign ificantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the c rime in question.”

“The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durati onally is 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. Cox

“The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durati onally is whether the defendant’ s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

To identify the circumstances or factors that may support a sentencing departure, a sentencing court considers “the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.”

“ The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationall y is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

A district court may grant a downward durational departure if it finds the defendant’s conduct was significantly “less seri ous than that typica lly involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

“The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

A district court may grant a downward durational departure if the defendant’s conduct is significantly “less ser ious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 641, 643 (Minn. 1984).

Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are “those which demonstrate that the ‘defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().

A district court may grant a downward durational departure if it finds that the defendant’s conduct was significantly “less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

On a motion for a durational departure, the district court must examine “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

In exercising its discretion, a district court may grant a downward durational departure if it finds that the defendant’s conduct was significantly “less serious than that 5 typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 641, 643 (Minn. 1984).

A district court may grant a downward durational departure if the defendant’s conduct is significantly “less serious 5 than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

In considering a motion for a durational departure, a district court must examine “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

In considering a motion for a durational departure, a district court must examine “whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

d 641, 643 (Minn. 1984) (“The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart durationally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”).