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. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641.

163 citing documents.

  • State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
    Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that “the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” Misquadace, d at 69 () (emphasis added).
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    The question presented to the district court when considering a departure “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. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
    Substantial and compelling circumstances 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.” ().
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
    We have said that “[t]he 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.”
  • State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    In assessing proportionality, this court must consider “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. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (generally permitting consideration of course of conduct underlying charge for which defendant is being sentenced).
  • State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Behl 547 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Behl 547 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    In any event, “generally it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.”
  • State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Davis 546 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
    Relevant decisions include: -33 (Minn.1984) (if defendant is convicted of lesser offense of unintentional felony murder, trial court cannot base departure on its belief that killing was intentional or premeditated and that defendant should have been convicted of the more serious offense); -45 (Minn.1984) (ordinarily when a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense, the trial court may not depart on the basis of evidence that the defendant could have been convicted of the more serious charged o
  • State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Burrell 506 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Griffith 480 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    When deciding whether to depart durationally, the trial court must determine that “the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (concerning durational departures); (concerning dispositional departures), pet.
  • State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
    The decision to depart is based upon the inquiry of “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. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
    (does not apply), (does apply) (applies in part).
  • State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    The issue before a trial 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.” ()
  • State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In order to depart durationally, the trial court must decide whether a “defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Skinner 450 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Further, the trial court should examine whether “defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
  • State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990